Smithsonian Removes EV1 Exhibit

johnMG writes to mention a Seattle PI article on the Smithsonian's move to remove the EV1 electric sedan from display. From the article: "The upcoming film 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' questions why General Motors created the battery-powered vehicles and then crushed the program a few years later. The film opens June 30th. GM happens to be one of the Smithsonian's biggest contributors. But museum and GM officials say that had nothing to do with the removal of the EV1 from display."

Comments

GM loves corn

[Original Replica]

GM is pushing "flex-fuel" over hybrids. Ethanol over electric cars. For GM to have this first commercial electric car and then lose the hybrid market is embarassing. But at least they have the good sense to put SUV's in their place: in a museum.

Not as market-driven as you'd hope

[Alfred, Lord Tennyso]

The question is, why did they buy the SUV rather than the EV-1? At least in part, they liked the size, and felt that relatively cheap gas (remember the "gas glut"?) was worth the mileage.

But at least according to the film, more was at work than the market in that decision. They blame the oil companies for anti-market tactics like astroturf groups to oppose charging stations, as well as buying congressmen to give tax credits to SUV owners. (SUVs over 3 tons, most famously the Hummer, were treated as commercial vehicles, and given huge tax breaks. And non-enormous SUVs got to count their potential carrying capacity towards that 3 tons under a 2002 "economic stimulus package").

Oil companies also campaigned vigorously against emissions restrictions and higher CAFE standards. In market terms, those are attempts to monetize externalized expenses.

So the cards were stacked in favor of SUVs and against the electric car. Not by the market, but precisely counter to the market, when powerful companies get a larger say in regulations than consumers do.

Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope

[johnMG]

GM knew they could sell electric cars.

I think the point you're missing is this:

Electric vehicles are simple and inexpensive to design and build.

Way simpler than ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles. ICE's have to have many many moving parts working in sync to even run at all. There's even fluid dynamics involved for air, fuel, and lubricant flow. It's insanely complicated compared to an electric car which happens to consist of only 4 major parts:

• the electric motor,
• the charge controller,
• the power controller ("throttle"), and
• the batteries

That's it. Any other fancy features (like regenerative braking) are just gravy, and you don't need them for a simple functional vehicle.

Car companies could make an electric "VW Bug" type car in their sleep. Hobbyists have been making them in their garages for decades.

The fact of the matter is not that car companies can't make money on them, the fact is that they wouldn't be able to make nearly as much money on them as they do with ICE vehicles. Here's some reasons why:

1. Energy efficiency. All the extras that car companies like to change extra for (power windows, power doorlocks, automatic transmissions, big stereos, heated seats, etc.) become much less viable with small economical energy efficient vehicles. Instead of "features" they become things that reduce how many miles you can go on a charge.

2. Size. EV's tend to be fairly small. Car companies like to charge big money for big vehicles.

3. Parts. EV's are very reliable. We're used to driving vehicles around which have explosions going on inside their engines. This wears ICE's out fast. Electric motors last an very very long time with minimal maintenance. This means car companies will not make much money selling parts. Batteries, OTOH, do wear out. But they're dimensions are currently pretty standardized, and so you wouldn't have to go to the dealership to recycle them.

4. Lifetime. As mentioned, EV's last a very long time. Car companies like their customers to drive disposable cars, so they can be sold another car in a few years.

5. Oil. You can't discount the relationship that car companies almost assuredly have with oil companies. It's symbiotic. Do you think maybe GM has heavy investments in several oil companies? I'm sure they certainly do. And widespread EV sales would hammer oil company profits. Do you think maybe oil companies have large investments in automobile companies? Let's listen in on a possible future phone call:

Oil company exec: Hi. Say, all these EV's you're producing - we're really getting hit hard over here. 'Little help?

Car company exec: Yeah, we're doing pretty good with 'em. Folks really love 'em. So, we don't plan on not selling them any time soon.

Oil: Yeah, well, see,.. we were thinking, maybe then it would be a good idea if rearranged our corporate stock ownership portfolio a little... to realign our core ... [snip marketspeak].

Car: Whoa! Whoa there. Just a sec... you can't do that... If you did that, then [snip finance speak about lots of fire and brimstone showing up in the car company's checkbook]

Oil: Yes, actually. We can. [car company exec sweats profusely while oil company exec twirls phone cord on the other end and absently feeds fish in piranha tank]

Car: Say, look, um... we actually were just getting ready to discontinue our EV line anyway. Y

who stands to lose the most?

[zogger]

Electric cars can be quite fast. Electric motors have all their torque starting at one rpm and it just goes on from there. There isn't a fuel engine made that can compare horsepower to horsepower down where the rubber meets the road with an electric motor. People who managed to *lease* an EV1 loved them (EV1's were leased, not sold for the most part), they tried their darndest to get GM to sell them at end of lease and GM just took them away and crushed them while they were still in perfect working order. Read up on it, or actually go see that movie in the article, that is what this is all about.

Electric cars are a threat to auto makers because there is much less stuff to break and they are simpler to make (think about that one for a long time, it is a critical part of the equation), and they are a threat to governments because there is no way to apply the road fuel tax to them (short of the GPS tracking deal they just started in oregon). You can theoretically own an electric vehicle, own some solar panels, and eventually be driving for pretty darn cheap per mile. Many people are happily doing that today, proving it is possible and can fill a lot of niche driving. As to range,50-100 miles on a charge is doable *now*, which would handle just millions of commuter profiles, that is *easily* extended and handled by having an additional tow behind trailer with a fuel burning generator in it for trips, which would then morph your ride "on demand" into a hybrid vehicle..

    Pure electric cars are a clear cut example of what is called "disruptive technology" that threatens big auto, big oil and big government. A lot of big money and big juice there that doesn't want that sort of threat, yes? That is why electric cars "failed",not that they don't work or can't be built in mass productyion style, of course they can,but they were never offered in the first place.

    When is the last time you saw a pure electric car at a normal mainstream dealer *for sale*? I'm an old gear head,and I have *never* seen one for sale, never. I have seen anything and everything else under the sun with an engine that moves for sale, the only electric "car" I ever saw for sale was a golf cart, not a real car. I have seen a few low production prototypes that people hand built, and you were able to buy them used that way as one or two-offs,but that's it, nothing mass produced.

They say "there is no market", well it is a self fullfilling prophecy if you never even try to sell them.

Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars...

[quanticle]

Since most electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels, an all-electric car would most likely be worse than one burning the fuel directly. I have never heard of a perfectly efficient method of transmitting electricty from where it was produced to where it was needed (e.g. charge up the car). Ergo, there would be a net increase in "environmental badness" to use the e-car vs what we have now.

Not necessarily. Your argument is only true if the electric power plant and the gasoline-powered car operate at the same efficiency. If the power plant is significantly more efficient than a gasoline engine, then it is quite possible for the electric car to be more environmentally friendly than the gasoline car, even with transmission losses.

Your argument also ignores the fact that its generally easier to implement and upgrade pollution controls on a few dozen power plants versus several million automobiles.