who killed the electric car
 

saw this movie "who killed the electric car" at sundance film fest.

i have made it my mission to get the word out about this movie no
matter how deep in the grass roots I have to go!

www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com

a reviewer at the same screening I was at said this:

I saw "Who Killed the Electric Car?" at Sundance and I agree with A.O.
Scott's review in the NY Times: I haven't seen a crowd go that nuts in
I don't know how long ... multiple standing ovations ... a woman who,
during the Q&A with director Chris Paine, declared that she didn't
actually have a question, but "damn you for making me cry over a car!"

apparently the necessary science and technology is already available to
reverse global warming but GM and uncle sam are literally shredding it.

yet we the people have the power!

the uplifting bit is about how a modern American Revolution, as well as
piecing the environment back together again, is possible through what
all Americans are great at - consumerism!

please tell everyone you know about this!
and see it!


to the health of our planet! - chris

who killed the electric car
 

wrote:
>
> apparently the necessary science and technology is already available to
> reverse global warming but GM and uncle sam are literally shredding it.
>

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull****.

dave

who killed the electric car
 

well buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull**** dave, why don't you have look at
some of the information and arguments made in this film and then we can
have a real conversation about this issue and you'll have the
opportunity to provide me with a (perhaps) more convincing and informed
response.

really, i'm open to it.

sincerely,

chriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis


wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > apparently the necessary science and technology is already available to
> > reverse global warming but GM and uncle sam are literally shredding it.
> >
>
> Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull****.
>
> dave

who killed the electric car
 

well buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull**** dave, why don't you have look at
some of the information and arguments made in this film and then we can

have a real conversation about this issue and you'll have the
opportunity to provide me with a (perhaps) more convincing and informed

response.

really, i'm open to it.


sincerely,


taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarek


wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > apparently the necessary science and technology is already available to
> > reverse global warming but GM and uncle sam are literally shredding it.
> >
>
> Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull****.
>
> dave

who killed the electric car
 

well buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull**** dave, why don't you have look at
some of the information and arguments made in this film and then we can

have a real conversation about this issue and you'll have the
opportunity to provide me with a (perhaps) more convincing and informed

response.

really, i'm open to it.


sincerely,


chriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis





wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > apparently the necessary science and technology is already available to
> > reverse global warming but GM and uncle sam are literally shredding it.
> >
>
> Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull****.
>
> dave

who killed the electric car
 

The entity posted thusly:

>apparently the necessary science and technology is already available to
>reverse global warming but GM and uncle sam are literally shredding it.

Really?

>yet we the people have the power!

I agree.

>the uplifting bit is about how a modern American Revolution, as well as
>piecing the environment back together again, is possible through what
>all Americans are great at - consumerism!

Hey, go for it.

>please tell everyone you know about this!
>and see it!

I'll leave that to you., but I will say one thing. The best argument
you could make for your position is to build that car. If you build
it, we will come. We will be heartily surprised, but we WILL come.

Waiting for the sequel....
 

I'm waiting for the sequel......

"Who killed the lying, sob, gullible, tree-huggin' idiotic liberal who
hasn't got a single clue?"


Where does the electricity come from to charge these electric vehicles?

NIMBY?


What about the hazardous waste impact of the batteries/chemicals/heavy
metals, etc. when they are used up?

NIMBY?


What about the hazards of servicing these high-voltage vehicles? You're
asking automotive technicians to take on the same risk as electrical
company line workers.

What sort of impact will THAT have on workers comp and other insurances?

Electric cars - and alleged "intellectual and property proprietary
information" involved will, effectively, eliminate the independent
automotive service aftermarket - giving dealerships a monopoly. You think
auto repair is expensive now?

If you believe GM would like to see the Electric car or Hybrids die, you
are sadly mistaken. Service exclusivity would be a windfall for its
"stealerships".

who killed the electric car
 

wrote:

> apparently the necessary science and technology is already available to
> reverse global warming but GM and uncle sam are literally shredding it.
>
> yet we the people have the power!

While I must applaud your enthusiasm, think about where you get your
electricity from. Does your power plant produce electricity pollution
free? Mine doesn't either. I've always thought that having an electric
car does not stop pollution, it just moves the source of pollution from
your exhaust tail pipe to the power plant's smoke stake, although they
probably produce it a little more efficiently.
To produce electricity pollution free you need to get it from hydro,
the sun or from the wind. Which one do you have? Can you imagine if
everybody had a solar cell, a large windmill or a source of hydro power
in their back yard? It's just not going to happen.
One more thing about "GM and Uncle Sam shredding it". GM doesn't own
the world and neither does Uncle Sam. (although Uncle Sam tries to) Do
you see electricity used ANYWHERE in the world as the major source of
automobile transportation? Most of the world's electric subways get
their power from pollution-producing power plants also.
Now, if electric cars are so simple to build, go ahead and build one
and show us how it is done. Remember that it has to have most of the
conveniences of an internal combustion engine or people won't want to
buy or use it.

Good luck.

who killed the electric car
 

On 15 Jun 2006 11:36:21 -0700, wrote:

>saw this movie "who killed the electric car" at sundance film fest.
>
>i have made it my mission to get the word out about this movie no
>matter how deep in the grass roots I have to go!
>
>www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com


There was a write-up in Design News (trade and technical
journal for the design engineering profession) a few months ago on
this very subject. People from all kinds of different industries were
interviewed or surveyed about the prospects of bringing a truly
practical electric vehicle to market.
The real problem is with batteries, not power generation.
Storage batteries that can provide the power to move even a
lightweight vehicle around on the roads in anything like the manner of
petroleum-fueled vehicles just don't exist at the moment. Batteries
are heavy and expensive. Batteries take a LONG time to re-charge,
after relatively short traveling time. Batteries are NASTY hazardous
waste when it comes time to dispose or recycle. And other
disadvantages.
The consensus of the battery, electric motor, and vehicle
makers who communicated in the article mentioned above was,
essentially: "At the present level of development, there are no
batteries that are adequate for widespread, commercially-viable use as
prime movers in vehicles. And, given the `state of the art' at this
time, there will not likely be any such batteries available within a
couple of decades."

who killed the electric car
 

They're dead?

Go buy a Prius. In a year or two, there will be some aftermarket kits
for plug-in hybrid conversions (its possible now for the DIY crowd).

There is a small amount of truth to the rumor that 'Uncle Sam' doesn't
like them. They haven't figured out how to apply road tax to the charger
outlet. But give them time. There is no limit to man's ingenuity when it
comes to squeezing a few bucks out of the consumer.

GM's Impact isn't really a good case for a viable production product
being squelched. It was a prototype, highly subsidized and very
expensive to maintain. If you think that a similar vehicle could be mass
produced for a significant market, go right ahead. Keep in mind that
there are quite a few federal regulations regarding ongoing maintenance
support to deal with.

IIRC, there were a few hundred Impacts produced. Aside from the cost of
the unique technology itself, we already have some good data on what it
takes to design, produce and support vehicles that are built in
production runs of only a few hundred. They typically cost upwards of a
half million dollars to several million dollars apiece. Ferrari,
Lamborghini, Porsche all have examples of limited production cars.

I think GM made a big mistake by NOT allowing the lessees to convert to
purchase contracts. For a price in line with what other limited
production autos command, it would have been a great PR move. But I'm
not convinced that there was a conspiracy involved. GM just hasn't been
very bright lately when it comes to marketing decisions.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.
-- Fletcher Knebel