digg

Join DiggAbout

"Who Killed The Electric Car?" on Google Video watch!

video.google.com — A very important documentary that needs to be seen, this is in a very limited release right now so this is lucky.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35had to pause it to comment. about 15 min or so in, you get a screen crawler w/ the mpaa phone numbers and warnings re- copying and distributing the film. made me laugh, thought i'd share.
    • ChuckRoastHere, on 10/12/2007, -36/+5@glasmodiar

      You obviously didn't watch the movie, and you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
    • JAshbaugh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10download the movie to your computer from google.

      http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php
    • short_man, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4lol- someone uploaded a movie on google video
    • TheWorm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Don't really want to watch an hour and a half long movie right now but I hope this stays up for a little while so I can catch it another time. It looks like an important movie.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36I watched this about a month ago at an actual theater.. it's a great documentary that will probably piss you off. (as if you could get any more angry about our government these days)
    • stephenwq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32This would have to be the longest highest quality video i've ever seen on google video.
    • glasmodiar, on 10/12/2007, -26/+5I watched the first 2/3 of this loooong movie. To advocate something you need to nod to the opposition--at least acknowledge the arguments against your position. So you say they finally did some of that an hour into the movie?

      Look, electric cars are a great idea, but it's not going to take off until batteries are improved. Toshiba released a lithium battery that charges in one minute. That's a step in the right direction. But good batteries are still prohibitively expensive.

      Toshiba Battery: http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr2901.htm
    • tehmoth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7JAshbaugh: or click the download button?
    • killa62, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Direct link to avi download, (so you can stream it)
      I hope this works, if it doesn't, digg me down
      http://tinyurl.com/ychw9p
    • beelz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.mininova.org/tor/431725

      DVDSCR
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Here is a little fact they just simply brushed over as if it weren't important: much of our electricity comes from either natural gas plants, or most importantly: coal burning facilities. By changing the individual vehicles' dependence from gasoline to electricity, in the short term that is actually worse for emissions. However, it sets up the economy in a way that if we were to create cleaner forms of electricity production in the few decades, we would already have made that change from oil to electricity and all would be well. (thats the best case scenario though, it would probably take a LONG time to get more nuclear plants, more solar+wind generators, etc)
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2No, it's not worse for emissions in either the short-term or long-term. In the short term, there is currectly excess electricity produced at night, when most EVs would be charging. Putting excess electricity to use gets us charged cars with no change in powerplant emissions at all.

      In the long term, EVs are several times more efficient than ICE cars, so even if dirty fuel is burned at the plant, the emissions are far lower.

    • sphinx13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Ignignokt01
      Did you watch the entire thing?
      45% of power comes from coal, and the emissions are not worse, they are better.
      Plus better technologies are being utilized to get electricity, like wind, and solar.
    • RomulusX86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm glad this is on Google Video, even though it's illegal it spreads the message, if it wasn't for that person that uploaded this, maybe 100s of people won't have seen it. Maybe one of those people who saw the movie "illegally" would do something that would chang the cars we drive, because of the inspiration of this movie. Now if it wasn't for this movie illegally watched the world would have been a different place.
    • pagit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dugg for "Anyone who wants to make a revolution shouldn't grab a gun, just start working, like we do to change the world , using science and technology."

    • nskinn, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Who killed the electric car? (full movie)

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5977085690 ...
  • glasmodiar, on 10/12/2007, -76/+5The one valid argument against electric cars is not brought up once in this movie: battery technology sucks. I'm glad this movie has been pirated because it is a P.O.S. Crappy batteries killed the EV1.
    • heyitsme23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44you didnt watch it long enough then. At one point in the movie it talks about the battery technology, and that the company with the new technology was bought out by exxon.
    • Rickz0rz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27If you would have watched it long enough, you would've noticed two key factors: the batteries were changed (think second revision), and those who used the EV-1 didn't MIND the battery life. They tailored their life around it, so much that they wanted to keep the EV-1 after their leases were up. This alone makes it seem as though battery life wasn't the main problem.
    • MAJORstrasser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@heyitsme

      Actually, it was Texaco.
    • yiandes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Exxon owns Texco or the other way around. I'm being blond and can't remember which.
    • yiandes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sorry didn't edit fast enough.

      Also, as an electric vehicle driver, I actually thought the movie focused on batteries a little too much. Call me crazy but I think they beat that one to a pulp with the interviews and closing with the man behind NiMH battery technology. Besides that, I know they should have cut out some of the drama and added more content but it was important to portray the good side of electric cars people rarely think about.
    • MAJORstrasser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@yiandes

      No, Exxon doesn't own Texaco. Exxon owns Mobil. Chevron owns Texaco.
  • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34really liked it. the old iraq b/w footage was creepy. and it's great to see how gm's big vehicle strategy wound up biting them in the ass resulting in near bankruptcy and a plummet of their stock price while toyota has had a great run. i think my favorite line was the old battery guy at the end (paraphrasing)... "if you want start a revolution, don't pick up a gun. get to work and innovate"
  • danz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10the movie was good and made some good points but as always with these types of videos its a one sided story. I liked the fact when they pointed to multiple people include consumers as responsible for the death. Overall it was good and well worth my time :)

    canewediggit : yepp the end quote by the old battery guy is the best. :)
  • heyitsme23, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3it kind of reminded me off all the political ads you see on tv during election season, like right now with congress and governors.
  • clearrecrd, on 10/12/2007, -24/+2...
  • EvilDoer, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3It's my understanding that after all the R/D that GM did it worked out to be something like 1 million dollars per car they had invested in the project.
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9No way GM spent a million per car, or a billion (as they've been quoted saying) on EV1 development. Think about it. That would be monumentally stupid. Especially considering the fact that they EXPECTED the program to fail from day 1, as they said so in newspaper interviews from the time the car was launched.

      There was quite a bit of taxpayer money involved, in the form of grants for EV research. This is where the money came from they spent.
  • Lososaurus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8half hour in, paused for Kings game, informative and surprisingly enjoyable thus far. I think they spent a good deal of time on it's presentation, not too soft, not too in-your-face.
  • 0zzy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17I like how it was uploaded by "truth911.net" - sigh.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -16/+15Yeah, the #1 way to lose credibility.
    • dbxz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12someone get a torrent up before the oil companies force them to take it down...

      there is some serious ***** wrong with this countries government.
    • batreyud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0lol people who believe in conspiracies have a tendency to believe anything they see that is considered conspiracy. you could present the facts in any sort of way, but the first one to knock on the government will be the first they chose to believe.
  • friend18, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Doesn't google have an anti-copywrited matirial rule? Either way, nice post, I'm going to download this.
    • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -67/+3yes they do, and i've reported it
    • shreveyboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+43you *****!
    • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -45/+2go back to jr high kid, where everythings free
    • MAJORstrasser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@ImTheDarkCyde

      Oh, ***** you. Somebody torrent this before it gets taken down.

      Edit: Guess I spoke too soon. Just saw the links down at the bottom. Gotta love this, with the MPAA warnings scrolling across the screen. Oh, the irony...
  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7so stealing an indie movie will in any way help awareness of the issue?
    • onelikeseabass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20actually, yes, it will

      many people that would not otherwise become informed by this film now will be thanks to torrents and illegal downloads

      one issue pressed in this film was the *lack* of public awareness
  • Lane5slacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Awesome. I wanted to see this movie when I first heard of it but the theaters around my town are not to big on those "intellectual" type films. They all want whatever horrible Uwe Boll movie that is out this week.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It opened in a small theater in my area a while ago.. and I was pretty much the only one watching it sadly enough. People just want entertainment.
    • RomulusX86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2true, when I went to go see Good Night and Good Luck (Muvico) there were only 4 people in the whole room, on a Saturday Night.
  • stephenwq, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4Ironic that 110 people dugg this and only 101 views on the video.....
    • friend18, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12That's not ironic at all.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7It's ironic.

      That was a great movie and I've been dying to see it but didn't have the cash. Now I have yet another reason to despise Reagan and Bush. (To all of those who feel any attack on Bush or Reagan when it comes to the environment is partisan-based, can you please tell me what either of them campaigned on except the deregulation of oil companies and drilling in new areas? Bush actively campaigned against research into new sources of fuel.)

      I got to LA in 2005, right after they trashed all of the electric cars. It was a weird experience. On the one hand, I was amazed at how easy it would be to get around LA with an electric car. Recharge spots are all over the place. On the other hand, all of the electric cars have been destroyed. It's still today an eerie transitional period for me as an outsider viewing the situation.
    • Mousse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It's twenty minutes later, I started watching it, and it's still at 101 views. I'm guessing either Google updates this figure periodically or it only registers a view when watched to the very end.
    • friend18, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It isn't ironic because it is what is to be expected. It is common knoledge that some people digg stories without clicking the links on Digg.
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Too many people vote their bias and do not RTFA or in this case WTFV.
    • onelikeseabass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@jamessavik

      it would be utterly shocking if someone had already seen the movie before it was posted here... that never ever happens, right?
  • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11http://www.mininova.org/tor/431725
    • MrZop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Much Better Than Google Video. Thanks.
  • andrewgrin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Its really an amazing video. I saw when it first came out and was amazed Now i am committedd to get an an electric car and currently working on a conversion. Here is a really cool electric production car www.teslamotors.com, coming out next year but its 100,000 DOLLARS!!!!
    • Gunegune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Awesome! Thanks for the link. I hope the electric car makes a come back.
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8There are cheaper ways to get electric cars. See:

      http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/
    • Peepsalot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7$100,000 is expensive, but you're talking about a car whose performance is on par with a $300,000 Lamborghini Murcielago, or a $450,000 Porsche Carrera GT.

      If I ever have the money to buy a car that expensive, I know where my money is going. I always liked Lotus anyways(they provide the chassis for teslamotors)
  • zephc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21You can't kill an idea. The electric car wasn't killed, it was just stalled. Like a Ford.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The movie references a specific recent model of electric car that was literally killed.
  • xtr3m, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12A real eye opener. The movie really shows how much the automobile and oil industries really care about us despite all their cool, slow motion ads.

  • tanveer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2since i already had it torrented few days ago...this lessens my guilt a bit :)
  • RiverCocytus, on 10/12/2007, -22/+3Problem with elecs is, America is too big. Don't need to show me that gas companies killed it, probably goes without saying. We don't have good elecs for much of the same reason our commuter bus and train routes for everywhere but the metros suck.

    They will be back, but smaller biz will lead the way, as it should be. The big car companies have lived far too long on the fed's teat... time for them to step it up.

    Elecs are kind of expensive and don't appeal much to the average american, to top it off. Not saying that's a bad thing. Just means the builders will have to crank it up a bit for people to get into it. The Tesla car is a good example, though its only a luxury vehic.

    The recent crisis has really cemented in people's mind about the need for alternative energy, whether it be corn, ethonol, methane, batteries powered from coal power plants, nuclear, hydrogen, wind, hydroelectric, and so on. Now if people would stop blocking the building of new plants and facilities. What an anti-industy mindset.

    Well, the future is coming, like it or not.

    And, don't post a copyrighted film without the permission of its copyright holder, Its just rude.
  • AmishGeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Saw it at the theater. Good movie. Dugg.
  • dafrank112, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Makes you realize how much power these oil companies have over the world.... its a damn shame
  • HarrietTubgirl, on 10/12/2007, -28/+4Hooray for misinformation!

    You'd think if "killing the electric car" was just some american oil company conspiracy, the more politically liberal, environmentally concerned countries like Switzerland would be absolutely teeming with the things. But they're not.

    The electricity powering the car is most likely produced by fossil fuels. There is significant power lost when going through power lines from the plant to the outlet powering the electric car.

    Huge batteries are expensive, contain dangerous chemicals that keep emergency personal away if you're in an accident and the battery leaks.

    And for you hybrid drivers, diesel cars have been getting 50mpg for decades.

    Ethanol is also a waste of resources. If you've taken econ 101, you'd know that dependence on foreign oil is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Canada is going to be our primary source for foreign oil for the next couple decades. While I think giant SUV's that never see dirt are retarded, driving them is not supporting terrorism.
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35"There is significant power lost when going through power lines from the plant to the outlet powering the electric car."

      Think about this. You are telling us that sending fuel by TRUCK is more efficient than sending it by wire.

      The electric grid is 95% efficient, by the way.

      "The electricity powering the car is most likely produced by fossil fuels."

      So what. EVs are many times more efficient than gas vehicles. This means less pollution regardless of what you burn.

      "Huge batteries are expensive, contain dangerous chemicals that keep emergency personal away if you're in an accident and the battery leaks."

      Yeah, gasoline is so much safer.

      "...you'd know that dependence on foreign oil is NOT necessarily a bad thing. "

      Now we know who you work for.
    • IanPhillips, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1Electric cars are great and all, but:
      1) I live in arizona and replacing batteries every 2 years or so would be expensive. Batteries don't last too long in the heat.

      2) You have to produce the electricity somehow. Which means more coal power plants and gas power plants.
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Even lead-acid batteries are good for at least 20,000 miles. My (very old) EV has an $800 battery pack - that works out to 4 cents per mile. Newer battery tech is much better than this. People refuse to believe me when I tell them I drive an EV to save money. The electricity itself works out to about 1 cent per mile.

      And no, EVs do not pollute anywhere near what gas cars do, even when coal is burned at the plant.
    • MAJORstrasser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"You'd think if "killing the electric car" was just some american oil company conspiracy, the more politically liberal, environmentally concerned countries like Switzerland would be absolutely teeming with the things. But they're not."

      Yes, because their cities were designed with efficiency in mind, unlike in America where the auto and oil companies did all they could to promote urban sprawl. You don't have to go 15 miles across town to get groceries or see a doctor or whatever. For the most part, you can walk where ever you have to go.

      And when things are beyond walking distance, they have this magical little thing called mass transit. With mass transit, people travel together in these things called buses, trains, and boats, instead of traveling all by themselves in their indivdual cars. As a result, traffic congestion is reduced, pollution is reduced, and often people can go without cars.

      "Oh my god, there are people in the world that don't need cars? *****...they must be commies." Actually, you can find this in our very own country. Look no further than New York City: "Data from the 2000 U.S. Census reveals that New York is the only locality in the United States where more than half of all households do not own a car (the figure is even higher in Manhattan, over 75 percent). While nearly 90 percent of Americans drive to their jobs, mass transit is the primary form of travel for New Yorkers. As a result of New York's uniquely high rate of public transit use it is one of the most energy efficient cities in the country. Gas consumption in New York, for example, is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s."

      It's amazing what you can do when you get your ***** together. Of course, New York doesn't hold a candle to most European countries, and especially Japan. Just take a look at the Shinkansen. My god, those things are sleek, sexy, fast, clean, and ALWAYS on time. "In 2003, JR Central reported that the Shinkansen's average arrival time was within 0.1 minutes or 6 seconds of the scheduled time." (Wikipedia) Compare that to Amtrak, which in 2005 was on time only 70% of the time (which, having taken Amtrak back and forth from college in Albany to New York City numerous times, I have an extremely hard time believing...left at least 30 minutes late, arrived at least an hour late EVERY TIME).

      Okay, now I'm starting to get way off on a tangent. My point is, it's perfectly plausible that the oil companies did kill the electric car. They lose out to the utilities, much like they did before they killed mass transit (with the help of the auto companies) back in the '50s.

      Sources:
      http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/amtrak_fact_check/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transit_in_New_York_City
    • cagedog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@HarrietTubgirl

      Speaking of misinformation, you should read this whitepaper that completely refutes yours:

      http://teslamotors.com/display_data.php?data_name=21stCentElectricCar

      Heres's a snippet:

      "The electric car, once the “zero-emissions” darling of environmentalists, is sometimes maligned as an “emissions-elsewhere” vehicle, since the electricity to charge its batteries must be generated in electrical generation plants that produce emissions. This is a reasonable point, but we must then ask how much pollution an electric car produces per mile – accounting for all emissions, starting from the gas or oil well where the source fuel is extracted, all the way to the final consumption of electricity by the car’s motor. When we work through the numbers, we find that the electric car is significantly more efficient and pollutes less than all alternatives."
    • giraldus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"...You'd think if "killing the electric car" was just some american oil company conspiracy, the more politically liberal, environmentally concerned countries like Switzerland would be absolutely teeming with the things. But they're not...."

      To read about Switzerland described as a 'liberal' country (in the usual US sense of the word) is laughable enough, but you are wrong anyway; as noted by yeechr Switzerland does not really make cars, a Swiss company -- Swatch -- however was involved in the manufacture of the Smart car; I grant you that this is not an EV, but it beats the crap out of the hybrids currently available in USA (both in terms of actual gas mileage and usability) and they are very popular over there (teeming might not quite be the word yet, but you won't see a street without one); the funny thing, which reinforces the argument of the movie, is that these Smart cars have been available in Mexico and Canada for a while but NOT in USA (well, not yet -- I know about Zapworld limited attempt at importing them here, and the manufacturer has announced that it might eventually sell them himself here, screwing Zapworld in the process)
  • mechanisma22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I would buy this DVD. I really am sad that there isn't a production electric car anymore. As soon as I get the money I'm building or converting one. Lithium Ion technology should be able to resurrect electric cars in providing them with more range. I don't see any other disadvantage to electric cars besides the range and cost but if Li-ion manufacturing became more mass produced for these applications I think the electric car problems could be solved.
  • egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13 It is well established the Stonecutters are to blame...

    All: Who controls the British crown?
    Who keeps the metric system down?
    We do! We do!

    Karl: Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
    Lenny: Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
    Alien: We do! We do!

    All: Who holds back the electric car?
    Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
    We do! We do!

    Skinner: Who robs cavefish of their sight?
    Homer: Who rigs every Oscar night?
    All: We do! We do!
  • chemicalrxn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7At about 53 min into the film, Edward H. Murphy, Ph.D. quote "The petroleum industry did not kill the electric car...What killed the electric car was antiquated technology."
    If electric appliances are so out of date, why are we not using oil lamps to read the paper in the early morning? I turn on my PC and go to digg. Does this make me old-fashioned?
  • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3While I have some insight into why the electric car was indeed covered up (well duh) of course they have to make it a bit too extreme left for my taste. You-Know-Who narrating, and the silly jet engine sounds from what is normaly a silent car to make it sound fast is a bit much for me and is a shame because it wont apeal to a large enough audience, eg. everyone.

    • irieKEN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The EV1s actually sounded like that.

      Ford's electric Ranger and Toyota's CRV EV make a much milder/nearly silent whirring.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No Irie, the EV1 did not sound like that. Mine sure didn't. But I suppose because the movie says so, it must be true, right?

      I Iove how in typical libral fashion we are told what to think by the nice "recap" of verdicts.

      I am so tired of these childish games that liberals and conservatives pull. Neither are right because both are too obsessed with their own way.

      Learn to become AMERICANS again people. Stop it with these power trips and selfish devices. Having one of your policial "officials" in office at all costs will NOT fix your problems. But having an AMERICAN (not a Con-man or crying-lib) in office can make a positive difference no matter their political alignment.

      We just keep voting foolishly and vote people in office who have special interests in mind and it is killing our country!

  • easy4lif, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I drove one of those Ford EV rangers when i worked for UCLA Parking services. It was horrible. the charge isn't great. I could, at best use it for 30 min. It was constantly at the dealership in for repairs cause the HEAVY batteries wore out parts faster. I remember they had to tow it backwards cause the batteries were too heavy for the tow truck to lift the vehicle from the front where they were located. Several times I was concerned that my partner and I weren't going to make it back to base to recharge (pushing vehicle would be impossible). I sure the UCLA parking sevices got rid of the vehicle.



    on the Plus side it had real pickup and go power. u could really make speed with electric motors. Beat out an s-10 that we were dragging against when lot 7 (ucla parking structure) first opened
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The Ranger EVs used 100-year-old lead-acid battery technology. Curious thing, Ford developed a sodium-sulfur battery that they used in their Ecostar electric (which was never released to the public.) The Ecostar with these batteries had a range comparable to the EV1 with NIMH batteries. I wonder what happened to the sodium-sulfur battery?
    • irieKEN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think that you may have been driving a lemon. We have a lot of electric vehicles up here in Hippyland, CA, and the Electric Rangers were actually very nice (for a Ranger).
  • mbinc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2if the EV1s and all the EVs are such great profitable cars why don't all the protesters or organizers start a company up, get financing from vcs or other people like them and then lease the technology from a car company and start selling they're own? if you care so much put your money into it. there is a lot that this movie didn't cover
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well, this is essentially what Tesla Motors is doing ( http://www.teslamotors.com ) The Tesla is in many ways the stepchild of the EV1. The drivetrain technology is similar.

      Starting a car company is no small endeavor. Give them a few years.
    • irieKEN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Edit: Someone beat me to mentioning Tesla Motors.

      What are the chances that they'll be owned by BP in 2 years?
    • MAJORstrasser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@irieKEN

      Hmm...good question. Depends on who's invested in them. If the original founders of the company control it, then I'd say they should be alright. Otherwise I give it two years.
  • dimplemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This was definitely very palatable no matter what your political persuasion may be leaning towards. The comment made by the EV1 battery creator was so poignant
  • Derferman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I know that this is completely illegal, but damn legality. I wanted to see this movie, and it came no where near my home town. This is why I love the Internet.
  • Johnny1337h4x0r, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Here's a link to the torrent for the documentary.
    http://torrents.to/search/209/who+killed+the+electric+car.html
  • Johnny1337h4x0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Here's the REAL link to the torrent for the documentary (sorry, didn't have enough time to edit last one)
    http://isohunt.com/download/13947573/who+killed+the+electric+car
  • WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Until electric cars can be recharged in under a minute (and that results in a charge that allows hundreds of miles of travel), they are inherently inferior consumer products. This deficiency makes "road trips" impossible. While the road trip may not play an important part in a person's life, the notion of buying a vehicle that *can't* do it is a sale-stopper for most people.

    Electric cars need to do more than compete with range and horsepower... they also have to compete with quick re-fills.
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So long road trips are difficult or impossible. No car can be everything to everyone. I don't hear people telling me that motorcycles or motor homes shouldn't exist, just because they aren't good for all the purposes people use cars for.

      As for quick refills -- here's a Mitsubishsi EV slated to be introduced soon:

      http://aftermarket.autoblog.com/2006/10/12/mitsubishi-looks-ahead-with-an-electric-i/

      It can charge (to 80%) in 20 minutes.

    • WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Apeweek,

      How much did you think that through? The ability to hit the road and go a considerable distance is not a minor detail, it is a major element of basic personal liberty. For those of us who can't afford multiple cars, buying an electric car means giving up that freedom. People won't do it. Of course, this does leave the "second car" market wide open but the road-trip question is still an issue even then.
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Whiteraven,

      I drive an EV. An old one, with a very short range. I love it. It saves me hundreds of $ in gas every month. I'm in a two car household, so we have another car for those longer trips. There are lots of two-car households, hence a sizable market. Probably bigger than the motor home market, at least.

      Here are two studies showing considerable EV demand:

      http://www.greencars.com/gci/gcimarketing.pdf
      (Above study conducted by Dohring, who does research for major auto companies)

      and another sudy at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/itsdavis/UCD-ITS-REP-96-09/


    • h3268, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3WhiteRaven,

      No offense, but how much did YOU think that through? Had you watched the whole documentary, you would've known that an electric car can travel well above 300 miles in a single charge. The technology is already here, but automakers just aren't willing to use it. Your argument is very unfounded, same with everyone else that isn't willing to spend an hour and a half to be informed.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2h3268...

      Uh... 300 miles is nowhere near enough. That's 5 hours of freeway driving. That would quickly become frustrating if you were actually trying to get somewhere. The issue here is the fact that the range of a gas powered car is effectively infinite since it's so quick and easy to refill.
    • digdug2020, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Your electric car does not save you 100's of dollars a month, unless you are traveling salesman or a trucker.
    • h3268, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3WhiteRaven,

      You do have a good point. People that travel 5 hours of freeway need a gas or diesel powered car. But the point is that a very large portion of people never need to do that kind of travel, and an electric car is much more efficient and environmental for city-driving purposes. There is a large demand for high efficiency low emission cars, and yet corporates and governments are ignoring these facts because there's very little money to be earned. Do you drive 5 hours of freeway everyday? I certainly don't.
    • baxtermadux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"This deficiency makes "road trips" impossible."

      you mean that if the battery recharge takes longer than a minute that a road trip is just "impossible" ?. you sound like one of the people from the movie idiocracy. moron
    • nogami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's a guy who has developed a "add-on trailer" for a EV-RAV4 that's basically an efficient gas generator. For normal city driving, you plug in and charge and use the vehicle in full EV mode. For long road trips and such, you connect-up the trailer (quite small), fill it with gas, and have unlimited range.

      It makes perfect sense... People who live in the city could buy the car without the trailer, and just rent one should they choose to drive long distances.

      But watching this movie makes me feel pretty good about driving a hybrid right now. Sure they're not perfect, but for the moment, they're the best compromise available, and they're continually getting better...

      N>
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Your electric car does not save you 100's of dollars a month, unless you are traveling salesman or a trucker."

      I'll show you exactly how an EV saves me money. An average driver in the USA puts about 15,000 miles on his car every year. That's 1250 miles/month. Assuming a 20mpg car, and with gas at $3.20 (like it was this summer), that's 62.5 gallons, and $200 out of my pocket.

      What does electricity for an EV cost? Here in Michigan I get an "EV rate" from my utility of 2 - 3 cents/kwh (Rate D1.7 in this document: http://my.dteenergy.com/myAccount/pdfs/rates.pdf )
      In a vehicle that gets about 4 miles per kwh, that's 312.5 kwh, which costs $6.25. Yep, SIX DOLLARS.

      So my fuel savings are $193.75 per month.

      So what about battery replacement costs? Well, that amortizes around 2-5 cents per mile, so let's say around $500 per year. But there are no other drivetrain maintenance costs on an EV - no filters, fluids, tune-ups, nothing. So this is the replacement for the maintenance costs I would be incurring with a typical ICE car.
  • dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Figures, it all comes back to Bush and his cabinet of ex-auto makers and oil tycoons.
  • Chris71990, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I wonder why Mel Gibson didn't blame it on the Jews
    • MAJORstrasser, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Good question.

      "Es ist Zeit für Rache! Wir müssen die Juden ausrotten!" Hahaha...
  • Glidedon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Ride your bike
  • PRlME, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13humm so we buy gas that gives the terrorests money to make bombs and we kill our selfs with cO2 at the same time while creating global warming that brakes off peaces of ice with innocent polor bears stuck on them and the eletric car can still beat my 300zx at a stop light....dam that sux
  • SirChaos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's sad that probably in my lifetime and in my children's lifetime, we will never see what some truly good could do for our society, such as the EV1.
    • heyitsme23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3ah quit being so pessimistic, we live in a peples government, as mentioned above, if we want to see electric cars, get enough support and start building some! heck, Ill even through in some money for the cause.

      I even know where to get parts to build the body of the car, in aspen, CO a private company is developing carbon body frames that are way stronger and more lightweight than fiberglass.
    • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is a company in CA (sorry, dunno their name) that can modify hybird cars to run exclusively from battery. I believe the cost is fairly reasonable too
  • deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secureurl=wQAAAF3r_BPm6SzqUsNnsx-sG3b-yer2-bwbMxN3h18ht3PreFiwp1biPbGs0IqEkImitwyT6GRNBHuHjKgVl-g3LbslxaapOeJXfgBXTSuQBBVfrzpWRvPEZxpss6Pvu2-OUAH0oYm9biqpXMFEV_AeTrMzm5XHd0OZ3A1IidFfQ_Egkyf-GbOMs2zf5q9MZtkkuwfQDchN3QG6pd860VAoM_XGiTN1phLoSebsR2HUyZ_JFhLp_eHUOIqmd8qKxUipbw1fYrfIXkli_UTKhq0yQ90&sigh=s1VWpM3bas_QDd9d_z2rGwV93JQ&begin=0&len=5560185&docid=-5599073542041338932
    docid:-5599073542041338932
  • ezliving, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Good film.

    It needs TV distribution. It won't sell in a theatre. Internet is too limited. Hopefully a lot of people download it quick. It is likely to get shredded like the EVs soon
  • stepanstas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is just really sad. They covered this up well. I remember seeing the electric batery chargers somewhere but this is one big monopoly. Over all, everyone would be happy
    now they wont
    I think this will never reinvent itself. Its really pathetic.
    • JohnChapin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0h3268 and chemicalrxn

      Gasoline to CO2 as a result of combustion... Got it... combines with air, so you're not just considering the volume and respective weight of the gasoline involved. Their numbers are still wrong though. chemicalrxn is right that it's much more complex than just the gas alone, but it's also more complex than a simple stoichiometric equation. Some engines are going to be more efficient at processing gasoline than others and that means the rate will be different for every car and for different conditions under which that car is operated. The number is probably going to be higher than the weight of the gasoline, but it's still not going to be 19 pounds of CO2. Not that the wasted energy and products not considered in a chemical reaction are any better than the 19 pounds of CO2.

      My first comment was a a bit hasty because I pointed to the wrong reasoning (conservation of matter), but they're still wrong. A gut reaction to the figure just threw my brain in to make a comment. I do have enough experience with cars and with engineering to know when something is exaggerated or a little outside the realm of reason. Thanks for the chance for me to straighten out the logic, I was being a silly goose! IMNSHO trusting the first link that google thrusts upon me would still not have been a sufficient answer. I just don't believe any one liner statistics that involves millions of machines with so many moving parts are going to ever be accurate.

      Rats... it put this on the wrong thread... digg's limitations on replies are frustrating.
    • h3268, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1JohnChapin,

      Sorry your handwaving simply isn't supported by any hard facts. A combustion reaction involves the reaction of hydrocarbons with oxygen to produce CO2 and water.
      _CxHx + _O2 --> _CO2 + _H2O

      If you balance the equation, you'll see that for each carbon atom involved in the reaction, one CO2 molecule will be produced. The molecular weight of a CO2 molecule is 44 g/mol, which is 3.67 times the weight of a single carbon atom. From http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/fueltable.pdf, the weight percentage of carbon in a hydrocarbon molecule is 85-88%. So assuming 100% reaction efficiency, the amount of CO2 produced from 1 gallon of gas will be ( 6.3 pounds hydrocarbon ) * ( 85% pounds of carbon atom per pound of hydrocarbon ) * ( 3.67 pounds of CO2 per pound of carbon atom ) = 19.65 pounds of CO2.

      Now, you're saying that "Some engines are going to be more efficient at processing gasoline than others". What you're saying has nothing to do with the *burning* efficiency of the engine, but rather the *work output* efficiency of the 4-stroke engine. For a 4-stroke engine, the amount of work done versus the amount of fuel energy input maybe somewhere around 30-40%. What this means that by burning 1 gallon of gas, the work done by a 30% efficiency engine is only equivalent to the energy contained in 0.3 gallon of gas. Nevertheless, you're still burning 1 gallon of gas to do 30% of work.

      The real efficiency that matters is how much fuel is actually combusted, i.e. how much of the 1 gallon gas is actually burned in an engine. And for modern engines, the answer to that is >95%. The remaining 5% of unburned gas goes straight to the atmosphere, which contributes to smog as well. Making the slight adjustment to the previous calculation, assuming 95% reaction efficiency, the amount of CO2 produced from 1 gallon of gas will be 6.3 pounds * 85% * 3.67 * ( 95% efficiency ) = 18.67 pounds of CO2.

      Is there any part of this that you don't agree? If you have any more arguments, please talk to any scientest or chemical engineer and present some hard facts. Handwaving doesn't work.
  • bjorntrung, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Don't believe the propaganda. This movie has a political agenda. Yes, electric cars are in their infancy, but they are not dead. A good idea will survive. yes the EV1 didn't survive. The head engineer for the project has written extensively on the subject in the automotive news. As for conspiracy, this one is just as likely as the 100MPG carburetor.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Yes, it makes no sense to panic about conspiracies and ***** at such an early date in the evolution of a new product. Good products can not be held back. (Oddly enough, there are plenty of bad products that do well but that's besides the point.)

      What I really don't understand is all the people posting here thinking that the concept of the electric car is now forever dead and won't ever be seen again (or as one poster said, in their child's lifetime). That kind of illogical paranoia is a sickness.

      GM is a company that wants to produce products that serve enormous markets. The electric car will be a boutique item. This doesn't mean it won't be made, it just means that large established car manufactureres have no reason to make it. This is not a conspiracy, this is just an example of companies taking care of their bottom line as they are supposed to do. There is plenty of room for a specialty company to come out with a designe that will make them money and serve THEIR bottom line... just give it a little time. It is way, way way too early to panic.
    • JohnChapin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1They do throw around some bad numbers, the most glaring one comes a few minutes into the film when they're talking about smog in LA. They say, "1 of gas gallon burned in any car produces 19 pounds of carbon dioxide."

      Correct me if I'm wrong... and I'm not... a gallon of gas doesn't weigh 19 pounds to begin with... how can it produce more matter than it has in the first place... Now 19 (units of volume) at standard temperature and pressure... that I could swallow... I think this film is interesting to watch for the engineering and business decisions... but I don't trust any of their numbers.
    • MAJORstrasser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Whiteraven

      That's kind of a BS argument. Everything starts as a boutique item, and yet that doesn't stop major corportations from putting out new technologies. DVD, LCD, Plasma, digital cameras, PCs...all those items where ridiculously priced, sold in small volume, and sold for small margins, and yet there has never been time where their respective industries haven't been pushing them as hard as they can. You know why? Because these things are long term investments. They might not make much money now, but when they blow and hit the mass market, oh, how the money rolls in.
    • h3268, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7JohnChapin,

      Please see this site: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml. A fast google search of "gallon gas 19 pounds carbon dioxide" will show you this link. A gallon of gas weights about 6 pounds, but most of that weight is carbon. When gas is combusted, i.e., reacted or "burned" with oxygen, it creates carbon dioxide. So most of that 19 pounds comes from oxygen in the air. IMHO, you should do some research before claiming something is wrong.
    • chemicalrxn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@JohnChapin

      Gasoline is made up of hydrocarbons - complex and simple molecules at the same time. They need oxygen for the combustion that powers the engine. By products of these reactions include heat, carbon dioxide and a few carbon containing molecules as junk. The amount of co2 produced stated may be the worst case cenario, but you must understand that they are measured differently. You are comparing apples to oranges, when it should be more like apples to green beans. They are respectively similar so to speak, but there is a little more involved in the way to calculate those numbers as they are different things. You silly goose.
  • b1m2x3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5After i saw this documentary in theatres, i was left feeling bad, because the film probably didnt reach the large audience it should have.

    They should have just put it on TV.

    but i guess this is just as good.
    Its something everyone should know about...
    • tnoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I felt the same way about it when I saw it. I went into seeing it thinking it would be just another scare tactic disguised as a documentary, but I rather liked it. I'm a huge supporter of the electric vehicle, I'm in the process of the design steps of converting a car now, so I *AM* biased on the matter. That said, I felt that the movie was well put together. I'd like to see it become (officially) a free download/stream to get it out to as many people as possible. The more people that think the alternatives are a possibility, the more likely we'll actually see an alternative. Hearing "in the next 10 years" for the past 20 years is getting old.
  • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4All hope is not lost. Even though The auto-oil industry killed it, the movie did happen to mention one thing that we are no seeing the benefit of right now. In all the hub-ub of the EV1, Japan became fanatical on developing some form of ultra efficient cars. Hell, the original design of the Toyota Prius called for a way to actually plug the car in to charge the battery at-will, which you will note is in the cars sold over there by default. It was only cut out when they sold them in America (gee, I wonder why) so we are forced initially to have the batteries charged by the engine and the braking system.

    However, a company that is growing pretty fast actually is doing conversions here for not only Prius' (since the filming of the movie) but now other Hybrid vehicles.

    Because of the scramble of Japan, we now have hope for better battery systems, meaning better mileage, range, power, and eventually the gas engine would be almost unused with the gas engine used only for longer distance travel.

    Unless the US plans to put an embargo and not allow improved models on future advancements to hybrid cars that companies like toyota and honda are making, we have strong hope for future EV cars in the disguise of a hybrid. However, because so many have sold, I think it would be too little too late as it would be so obvious to many what they are doing that a much larger outcry would result from everyone. Not just the political extremists out there.



    • kakapu4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.edrivesystems.com/ - The company that will convert your Prius to a plug-in model. Currently they're only in LA but planning to expand.

      If the movie is any indication, the future might not be so bright... Maybe take advantage and upgrade before the company is bought and shut down.
  • mrtruffle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wow that saved me a trip to the theatre.
  • bjorntrung, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0We Americans vote with our pocketbooks. Major companies research and develop new technologies such as DVD, LCD, plasma because the American public has shown over and over again that we will buy it. As for automobiles, we have shown over and over again that we buy bigger more powerful vehicles, fuel efficiency is an afterthought. Honda is discontinuing the most fuel efficient vehicle currently sold in the US. The insight is more efficient than a prius, which is bigger, and more powerful. And yet Honda sold probably five Insights last year. It does seem like we are finally changing our habits, but will it last?
  • Sizzor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If you do a Google search on "Electric Car", the first site that comes up is a GM Propaganda site which (tries) to debunk the facts in this movie.

    The GM site is: http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fastlane_Blog_2.html

    Amazing what GM says now about what they called "An Exceptional Car" on their own website.

    Check it out for yourself at the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20030623162220/http://www.gmev.com/

    GM doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to defending their actions. If these cars were so bad, and nobody wanted them, when why did they forcibly reposess them (using police force at times) and crush them? Even the few donated to museums had their powertrains disabled by GM.

    And I saw a 60 Minutes segment where they said GM is in trouble because of the high cost of benefits for their employees The real truth is GM's managment are idiots.
    • nogami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well, GM has ensured that for the rest of my life, I will never buy any of their products, nor from any of the companies they own.

      Here's hoping that Toyota buys GM, and sends them off to the crusher...

      N.
    • glenra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The decision to crush the cars absolutely made economic sense for GM due to the California regulatory environment. The sad thing is that California doesn't really allow big companies the ability to contract freely with consumers. If you sell a car in California, you're legally required to *support* that car for ten years. 800 cars are not enough to make it worth maintaining the expertise to fix the car in the long term, when the car is that highly specialized. Plus, the batteries weren't that reliable - like laptop computer batteries, these had a habit of occasionally blowing up and leaving people stranded - so the insurance and reputation impact would have been bad. And the cars were *ridiculously* subsidized by the manufacturer, so it's unlikely they could have made money by selling more of them unless there were some major breakthroughs. It's not surprising people loved those cars, they were renting a car worth more than 100k for the price of a hundai!

      http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/7/10/22447/3144

      This program was an insurance policy for GM against the possibility of a zero-emission mandate - they'd be able to stay in business by subsidizing a few EVs with the money they make from selling the real cars people wanted. When the mandate went away, the need to waste all that money went away too.

      Electric cars will eventually be good enough to meet consumer needs at a reasonable cost, but they weren't then.

      It's a good movie, but it's one-sided propaganda.
    • glenra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Here's a better link - read the comments as well as the article:
      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/ev1_criticism.php

      Points made therein include:

      (1) the car didn't meet US government safety standards so they weren't *allowed* to make a huge number of them - it would have needed a redesign to be legal in mass numbers.

      (2) The implication that Honda and Toyota just followed GM's lead and destroyed good cars people wanted to buy that could have made them a profit...is ludicrous. If the demand were there and the cars could be safe and profitable, Honda and Toyota would *love* to have that market all to themselves.

      (3) this quote: "We owned one and while we always felt great driving it around Pasadena, it was pretty much the most impractical vehicle we have ever owned. We never got close to 130m on a single charge, and believe me, we tried hard because it was difficult planning your drive around the few charging stations."
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, I've seen all the disinfo about the EV1 not meeting safety requirements, or about how they had to crush cars because they couldn't afford to supply spare parts for ten years, and all that other bunk.

      It's sheer nonsense. The EV1 did meet safety standards, just like every other car on the road - or it wouldn't be on the road. Period. Exceptions like this aren't made. How could you believe that GM would be willing to assume legal liability for leasing unsafe and uncertified cars, but is then afraid of being liable for a few spare parts?

      Why did Ford and Toyota relent, and allow their electric cars to be sold? How can they afford to stock spare parts? Because it's a laughably trivial burden. It's a very small fleet of very reliable cars. GM in all likelihood already had enough spare parts, or alternatively could hang on to a few donor cars for parts.

      The reason Toyota had to stop selling EVs is because the patent rights for the NIMH batteries were pulled. The NIMH battery patents were bought by Chevron/Texaco.
  • BrandNewDigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Speaking as a conservative republican (please don't digg me down yet!) I'm very glad that I watched this 92 minute video. I disliked how they made this video by only showing liberals supporting this technology and all the republicans being against it, but it was still very interesting. I think they could have made their video in a bi-partisan way by showing some of the republicans who don't have all of their money in the oil companies (believe me there are many out there!) Then maybe this video could reach a broader audience and not be so political.

    Other than that, give me my electric car now! We wouldn't have to fight a war in Iraq if that country had no oil to sell us. I say this not for the reasons you think, but because if the US didn't need oil, Iraq would have basically no source of income. Same with the other middle-east countries. If we didn't need oil, the middle-east would have NO power and would be no threat.

    One of the head physics professors at Northwestern University told me a few months ago that he thinks hydrogen fuel cell cars won't be possible for 30+ years. Believe me, this man is BRILLIANT and if he says that, it's most likely true.

    There's much more I could say but it's 2:40 AM here and I'm brain dead! Please excuse any grammatical, spelling, or thought errors!
  • bremstrong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It was a bummer seeing all of those GM EV1 cars crushed after GM promised they wouldn't, and after interested buyers offered $1.9M for them instead.

    If they were still on the road, getting occasional updates to newer battery technology, it would add to the electric vehicle experience base.

    Maybe people should encourage friends not to buy GM cars if this bothers them.
  • adamz6969, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0umm i just watched the whole it and it still says 101 view? hmm
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.