Here's the link to the trailer:
Last edited by a moderator:
"Who Killed The Electric Car" a documentary
- Thread starter Rodger Tellefson
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Makes you wonder about the scumbags we have in Washington, DC...doesn't it?
As they say, when you get a Dick (Cheney) and a Bush (King George) together, someone is going to get screwed.
Tom
As they say, when you get a Dick (Cheney) and a Bush (King George) together, someone is going to get screwed.
Tom
C B
Active Member
Killed the electric car? This sounds like another conspiracy theory from the usual suspects who have to explain yet another failure to their bruised egos. Would anyone here buy an electrric ST? Instead we are all excited about the new 8 cylinder model. How come? Are we brainwashed by the evil oil politicians? I don't think so.
A1cntrler
Well-Known Member
I saw that trailer a while ago. Seemed kind of interesting. I'll probablly rent it when it comes out. All it does is give you something to think about. Kind of like that powerpoint pretation in theaters now by Al Gore.. Something about global warming??
Dale Carlson
Active Member
A little premature, perhaps?
Linky to a story about a HOT new electric (sports) car, the Tesla - 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, 250 mile range, and only $80-90K...
Linky to a story about a HOT new electric (sports) car, the Tesla - 0 to 60 in 4 seconds, 250 mile range, and only $80-90K...
CB,
You are right, we would not buy an Electric ST and we are happy there is a V8 option. Then again, an Electric ST would not be able to pull a trailer. An Electric car would not be able to haul 30 bags of mulch for weekend projects.
An Electric car would be perfect for me as a second car. Something with a 100 mile range would be perfect for day to day life. Unfortunatly, any type of vehicle that gets great mileage, i.e hybrid or electric, is prohibitly expensive for the ones that high oil prices affect the most.
The low to lower middle class is treading a thin line between living and being flat out broke. Those that can afford the electric and hybrid vehicles are not affected by high gas prices.
Why hasn't anyone even offered the opportunity to buy an electric vehicle at a reasonable cost? The technology is there.
Tom
You are right, we would not buy an Electric ST and we are happy there is a V8 option. Then again, an Electric ST would not be able to pull a trailer. An Electric car would not be able to haul 30 bags of mulch for weekend projects.
An Electric car would be perfect for me as a second car. Something with a 100 mile range would be perfect for day to day life. Unfortunatly, any type of vehicle that gets great mileage, i.e hybrid or electric, is prohibitly expensive for the ones that high oil prices affect the most.
The low to lower middle class is treading a thin line between living and being flat out broke. Those that can afford the electric and hybrid vehicles are not affected by high gas prices.
Why hasn't anyone even offered the opportunity to buy an electric vehicle at a reasonable cost? The technology is there.
Tom
Last edited by a moderator:
C B
Active Member
Tom -
How did Henry Ford sell cars without the Gov't helping out with initiatives, programs and tax breaks? And not only that, he made those cars affordable for the middle and lower classes through mass production. I'd surely cosider an electric car if one were offered at an affordable price. I did consider they hybrid but as you pointed out hybrid or electric doesn't do all the things I want to do with my ST.
However, what's the point whether I pay higher oil prices at the pump or at the elecric company? I just don't buy the big bad oil companies run by Montomery Burns types as the root of all evil. There's plenty of evil to go around for everyone especially if you think about the big bad oil countries and what nasty weapons they are building with their oil wealth. But do I worry about some guy's retirement fund at Exxon? No way, class envy is for suckers.
How did Henry Ford sell cars without the Gov't helping out with initiatives, programs and tax breaks? And not only that, he made those cars affordable for the middle and lower classes through mass production. I'd surely cosider an electric car if one were offered at an affordable price. I did consider they hybrid but as you pointed out hybrid or electric doesn't do all the things I want to do with my ST.
However, what's the point whether I pay higher oil prices at the pump or at the elecric company? I just don't buy the big bad oil companies run by Montomery Burns types as the root of all evil. There's plenty of evil to go around for everyone especially if you think about the big bad oil countries and what nasty weapons they are building with their oil wealth. But do I worry about some guy's retirement fund at Exxon? No way, class envy is for suckers.
Who helped Bill Gates design and develop the operating system most people in the world use?
People did not have anything to compare it with. We have more money to use today, so we can afford to buy the extra options. If Ford were to build a car today with no options, only one color, etc, do you think they would sell? I don't! The magazines would say, great car for the price, but we would buy the Honda. Though it costs twice as much as the Ford does, it does come in a wide range of colors.
The same amount of energy in a gallon of gas is only 60 cents of electricity. Is there a savings? You bet. If the energy comes from Nuclear power, it would be even cleaner. I am a strong supporter of Nuclear Power.
I don't either. I do recomend you, and anyone else here, to read a book called "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. It will really open your eyes. It really opened my eyes to alot of things and made things I have heard over the years come into focus.
Tom
Last edited by a moderator:
C B
Active Member
Glad to hear it. I am too. I'm also in favor of domestic drilling, ethanol, biomass, windmills, and solar panels. Unfortunately the party your union has supported for the past 50 years or so has either killed or sapped the profit from most of those alternatives. Instead we are told we need to conserve by politicians who ride in SUVs and fight to keep windfarms from spoiling their Cape Cod views. Do I sound like a disgruntled New Englander? You betcha.
By the way thanks for that big Gov't program called the Big Dig. Too bad Bill Gates couldn't have managed that project too. ;-)
Last edited by a moderator:
My career is in Nuclear Equipment. It is clean, relaible, safe, and powerfull. If done right, it is safer then a coal fired power plant. I have seen coal and natural gas boilers after an explosion.
Tom
Tom
C B
Active Member
As I said, I'm all for nuclear but the three mile island hysteria really hurt that cause and then the Soviets really made a mess of things. However, I've seen that there are some recent efforts in the works to increase nuclear. Unfortunately for me and my electric bills, all those efforts are in southern states. Oh well, I can dream of retirement. Maybe by then I can have a Mr. Fission machine mounted on my Sport Trac.
The primary greenhouse gas that al the so called "Experts" are concerned about is CO2, most of which is generated by the burning of fossil fuels. This excess CO2 is claimed to be creating a greenhouse effect in the earths atmosphere and is the major contributor to global warming.
The fact is that the highest concentration levels of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere were recorded shortly after WW-II. During this time, the earth was also experiencing some of the coldest weather ever recorded by man. Many scientist were predicting that the earth was entering another "Ice Age". That has proven to be false and I suspect that most of existing theories about Global Warning will also prove to be false.
I don't think air pollution does the planet any good and it certainly does not promote human health. So I agree that we need to reduce the pollution and an look to alternative energy solutions to replace our dependency on fossil fuels for health reasons as well as economic reasons.
The reason the electric car died was do to a lack of battery technology. Electric cars have a limitied range because of the storage capacity of the batteries. Also, the space and weight of the batteries severly reduces the payload capacity of the vehicle. A good portion of the vehicles GVW is consumed by the batteries.
Then the batteries take time to recharge and their storage capacity only allows for driving ranges of about 100 miles until they must be recharged. Even if you can live with the limited range and recharging required for electric cars, you will eventually be faced with the expense of replacing all the batteries. This brings up another problem of battery disposal. Nearly al modern batteries utilize dangerous chemicals and heavy metals that are far more toxic to humans and animals than the levels of CO2 emitted from the use of fossil fuels.
An electric motor can generate 3-5 times more horsepower than a similarly rated gasoline engine. A single 40 HP electric motor can generate power that would require a 120-200 HP gasoline engine to match that power output.
I see hydrogen powered, internal combustion engines and hybrid fuel cell/electric vehicles as where the future will be.
...Rich
The fact is that the highest concentration levels of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere were recorded shortly after WW-II. During this time, the earth was also experiencing some of the coldest weather ever recorded by man. Many scientist were predicting that the earth was entering another "Ice Age". That has proven to be false and I suspect that most of existing theories about Global Warning will also prove to be false.
I don't think air pollution does the planet any good and it certainly does not promote human health. So I agree that we need to reduce the pollution and an look to alternative energy solutions to replace our dependency on fossil fuels for health reasons as well as economic reasons.
The reason the electric car died was do to a lack of battery technology. Electric cars have a limitied range because of the storage capacity of the batteries. Also, the space and weight of the batteries severly reduces the payload capacity of the vehicle. A good portion of the vehicles GVW is consumed by the batteries.
Then the batteries take time to recharge and their storage capacity only allows for driving ranges of about 100 miles until they must be recharged. Even if you can live with the limited range and recharging required for electric cars, you will eventually be faced with the expense of replacing all the batteries. This brings up another problem of battery disposal. Nearly al modern batteries utilize dangerous chemicals and heavy metals that are far more toxic to humans and animals than the levels of CO2 emitted from the use of fossil fuels.
An electric motor can generate 3-5 times more horsepower than a similarly rated gasoline engine. A single 40 HP electric motor can generate power that would require a 120-200 HP gasoline engine to match that power output.
I see hydrogen powered, internal combustion engines and hybrid fuel cell/electric vehicles as where the future will be.
...Rich
Q,
I have tried to be nice. Call me by my name I use and nothing else. You are a rude, arrogant, and immature person. You live a miserable life and you really need to grow up.
I don't like to be called by a different name then I use. I don't do it to you and I would appreciate it if you returned the favor.
Do you know anything about the EV1? Didn't think so. Battery problems on the latter versions? Nope. For you an electric vehicle is junk. For someone else, it is perfect. Should it be your choice and yours alone?
Tom
I have tried to be nice. Call me by my name I use and nothing else. You are a rude, arrogant, and immature person. You live a miserable life and you really need to grow up.
I don't like to be called by a different name then I use. I don't do it to you and I would appreciate it if you returned the favor.
Do you know anything about the EV1? Didn't think so. Battery problems on the latter versions? Nope. For you an electric vehicle is junk. For someone else, it is perfect. Should it be your choice and yours alone?
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen says:
Right.."if done right". But if done wrong, coal or natural gas kills hundreds in the surrounding area, but if nuclear is done wrong it can kill millions and leave an area inhabitable for some time.
TJR
Right.."if done right". But if done wrong, coal or natural gas kills hundreds in the surrounding area, but if nuclear is done wrong it can kill millions and leave an area inhabitable for some time.
TJR
Chops
Active Member
Here is a great private website from a woman that explores Chernobyl with regularity.
She does it on motorcycle and quickly. The pictures speak for themselves.
She does it on motorcycle and quickly. The pictures speak for themselves.
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
Q, cut the name calling.
The electric car failed because the market couldn't live with the limitations. If the EV was good technology, the hybrid never would have received billions in R&D funding by the automakers.
Environmentalists can whine all they want about it, but until someone comes up with an economical AND effective replacement for the traditional gas powered automobile, it's business as usual.
The one silver lining to high gas prices is that it will spur more innovation for altnatives.
The electric car failed because the market couldn't live with the limitations. If the EV was good technology, the hybrid never would have received billions in R&D funding by the automakers.
Environmentalists can whine all they want about it, but until someone comes up with an economical AND effective replacement for the traditional gas powered automobile, it's business as usual.
The one silver lining to high gas prices is that it will spur more innovation for altnatives.
I would have to disagree with that statement. When GM pulled the plug on the EV1's, the "owners", I am using the term owner losely since they were all lease vehicles, were upset. In many metropolitan areas, an electric vehicle, like the EV1, was perfect. You can find all types of cars for sale that are 3 years old with 20,000 miles on them. That breaks down to just over 18 miles a day. A vehicle with a range of 100 miles per charge is perfect for that.
When the EV1 was built in 1996, its batteries were weak. With today's batteries. I have no doubt that range would be closer to 200 miles. With the right marketing, I am sure GM could have sold, or leased, more then they could build.
With as many people out there now flipping out about gas prices, global warming, "being green", and want to be know as..."that person...", GM would be making a killing.
What benefit did GM get from destroying those EV1's? There had to be SOME incentive for them to pull the EV1's off the road. Lithium Ion batteries could have been used. Many warehouses use Electric forklifts for 8 hours of continious use before needing a recharge.
The technology is there, why not use it? I truly think there is a market for an electric car. Those that "owned" the EV1's would own one again.
I am not a tree hugger, actually far from it. I do think if there is not a good reason to not make an Electric car, it is a sin. I would really hate to think the government or the oil companies are behind it, but I think they are.
We are only told what we "need to know" and never what we should know. What really goes on behind the scenes is anybody's guess.
Tom
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
Cayman, a few hundred unhappy owners isn't a market. It's rounding error.
Four years, 800 EV1s leased. The waiting list of 5,000 yielded 50 people who actually followed through and leased.
Whatever perceptions you have about the market for that vehicle, well, reality proved otherwise.
Four years, 800 EV1s leased. The waiting list of 5,000 yielded 50 people who actually followed through and leased.
Whatever perceptions you have about the market for that vehicle, well, reality proved otherwise.
Please explain.
800 EV1's leased...as you said.
Then you said 50 people followed through and leased?
If GM leased 800 EV1's, hot could have 50 people leased?
What were the fuel prices when the fuel prices when the EV1 was built. Buck a gallon?
What would be the demand for them with fuel over 3 bucks a gallon now be? In 1996, SUV's were all the rage. Everyone and his brother, sister, mother, grandma, uncle, etc. HAD to have one. With the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight and other hybrid vehicles selling like hotcakes today, it is now the perfect time to build an affordable electric vehicle.
SUV sales are slowing way down. People are driving cars more. It isn't because they no longer need the room SUV's have to offer, it is the perception of filling the tank with 60 bucks worth of fuel thaat scares them. They are willing to "squeeze into a little car" to only have to put in 20 bucks a week in fuel. If they could build a Tahoe or Expedition that gets 40 MPG, the SUV's would still be hot sellers.
I just think the EV1 was built before it's time, and today, it would be a hot seller, or in GM's case, they would lease them as fast as they could build them.
Tom
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
Tom, sorry, but I can't agree. The hybrid is a better solution.
The 800/50 number is directly from GM's figures. I assume that the other 750 units went to people who never got on the original waiting list.
The 800/50 number is directly from GM's figures. I assume that the other 750 units went to people who never got on the original waiting list.
