Fingering the suspect (you) in the EV's death, again
it may not be the most original take on the question of why we don't have a robust EV infrastructure in America today, but Michael Kanellos's post over on CNET on just who killed the electric car is nonetheless a very good read.
Take this line as an example: "This is General Motors and Ford Motor we're talking about. U.S. automakers are the last bastion of industrial feudalism on the planet. The most innovative things they've come up with in three decades are the cupholder and the Lee Iacocca goggle glasses. (It was a huge fashion statement back in the '70s, kids.) These people are going to engineer a global conspiracy that eludes regulators around the world, financiers and competitors? GM execs are more concerned about who gets named to the Rolling Hills Country Club membership committee."
You like? There more where that came from, but if you're pressed for time the takeaway point is that making a "real" EV for the masses is no easy task, and the difficulty means there are a lot of reasons why no automaker has tried since the EV1 and RAV4 EV and Ranger EV went away. The success of hybrids, trouble with building a better battery, the inherent difficulty in making and selling cars and - very importantly - cheap customers are all to blame.
I heartily disagree with Kanello, though, when he says that understanding something by "follow(ing) the money", is something only crazy people do. There's a lot that gets revealed when we look at financial motives.
[Source: CNET]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Henry 4:23PM (8/29/2007)
Is it the people's fault that they got stuck to cigarettes in the 70s or did tobacco, making it seem clean, safe and patriotic hook us to their product?
Reply
Snark 5:04PM (8/29/2007)
Of course it's the people's fault; if you can't think for yourself and allow yourself to be swayed by advertising, that's your own goddamn problem.
The author is absolutely right. People won't buy an EV if it's more expensive upfront than a regular car.
Reply
Joseph 6:56PM (8/29/2007)
"Fingering the suspect (you) in the EV's death, again"
It's true. If there was a huge uproar of demand, then the cars would be on the road. However, the 90's was a time of prosperity, SUV-laden suburbia, and cheap gas. EV technology, also, was just a bit behind. Had automakers not given up, and not restirct production, I think they would've had sucess with NiMH EVs alongside the hybrids.
But as I said, with EV technology for the most part a bit to limited for mainstream acceptance
(excpet the NiMH cars), lack of company inituitive, and only modest demand at the time, the EV failed in its time alloted.
If CARB instead gave automakers humongo incentives for making x number of EVs with x number of Range and blah blah blah, there'd probably be more competition instead of a mandate. With a mandate, every one has got to do it, so your product will have competition, and therefore is more liekyl to fail. Who here wants to fail? If the automakers were give large incentives, instead of large demands, I could see EVs (maybe, with some good luck) surviving till today.
Then again...Isn't it alot cooler to have a car made from a start-up in Silicon Valley? :)
Reply
Mike Z 5:51PM (8/29/2007)
Is it someone fault they took up smoking. Yes! After all, no amount of advertising can overcome common sense that inhaling smoke is bad.
Reply
mlhm5 9:33PM (8/29/2007)
The author of the article completely leaves out the fact that Big Oil and GM teamed up to eliminate the trams from North American cities, so they are not as stupid as he claims they are.
The original EV was a huge mistake. GM never for a moment thought that people would buy it. The EV marketing campaign was supposed to be a "silver bullet" item but turned into a really popular vehicle, so popular that GM killed it instead of trying to improve it.
Flash forward to the Volt and GM once again is taunting the public with yet another of the same kind, which will turn out exactly like the EV, either pulled from the market or never marketed.
Since the government has made it almost impossible for a small displacement diesel to clear regulatory hurdles (big diesels are OK) and Detroit is not interested in marketing hybrids or EVs, the opportunity falls on the VC's, the Japanese, the Chinese and the Koreans to satisfy the demand in the US market.
Reply
Ron Fischer 8:29PM (8/29/2007)
Where to begin...
Kanellos opinions are garbage on this topic. Many people have examined this issue in more depth and much more seriously than this guy. In short, yes, the 90s EVs were expensive. The reason is that oil production, refining, delivery and use (emissions) are all deeply subsidized by taxpayer money. The rather imperfect means to get around this was the California ZEV mandate. It has been adequately documented that the Western States Oil Producers Association and US automakers exerted steady, firm pressure against the California mandate, first within the state and recently, during the Bush administration, at the Federal level. This led to the "short timeout" of incentives for the automakers, which kept us from EV-2 or EV-3 and overall ensured that gasoline cars were always cheaper, both upfront and per mile.
Our "free market" has a big structural problem related to oil energy. If this was resolved, then many solutions would appear, EVs being only one of them, and possibly not even the best.
Reply
Henry 8:49AM (8/30/2007)
We know "now" that smoking is bad even though our forefathers have been "smoking" rolled up corn leaves for years without ill effect. We just started to learn now that laser printers emit harmful fumes comparable to working next to a chain-smoker.
We did not know in the 70s that car emissions will give us cancer, heart attacks due to congested lungs or an asthma epidemic. The Big 3 did know. They knew about global warming before it became an Al Gore phenomenon. Had people known about these links they would have demanded electric cars- especially those with asthmatic children and smog cities.
Reply
Kendall Tawes 12:26AM (8/31/2007)
It's really down to a two point failure. On one side you have the stigmas of electric cars and on the other hand you have car companies scared of change that like to maintain the status quo. The death of the electric car is really everyone's fault but if one side had not made their respective mistakes whether it's Americans ill-informed stigma or the car companies mix of greed and incompetence we would have a wide range of electric cars to choose from today.
Though I do blame car companies more as they could change stigmas through simple advertisement campaigns but alas maybe times are changing. Though starting with a full size like GM is doing seems like an odd/bad choice. Eh, better than nothing.
Reply