AltCar 2008: Chris Paine talks "Who Killed?" sequel, coming in 2010
One of the highlights of Day One of the Santa Monica Alt Car Expo was spending an hour with "Who Killed the Electric Car?" director Chris Paine and hearing stories about making both that film and his sequel-in-progress. While he said the studio/lawyers would not let him show any clips from the new film, he did say they've been filming for a while now and they really got serious about a month ago. The crew has so far visited the GM tech center in Warren, the Volt unveiling and Iceland. He also showed some stills from the sequel film, "The Revenge of the Electric Car" (still a working title, as far as I know) from last Tuesday and then showed some pictures from the trip to Reykjavík as well.
While talking about making his surprise hit film, Paine updated the suspects list by talking about where the various groups are today. For some of the line-up, the story today is pretty much the same. Batteries, in his view, were good then and are simply better today. But the auto companies are making much more pro-plug-in vehicle moves now than they were during shooting of the first film. Oil companies are also singing a different tune on this round than they were in the mid-'90s. Consumers, well, if you're reading this, then you can probably explain how people care more about EVs now than they did 10 years ago.
While it took a long while for Paine and his friends to figure out the murder suspect theme of the first movie, he's already got a possible message for the sequel: maybe the crazies aren't so crazy. As a proud self-described crazy who's not afraid to take a stand - whether that means making EVs in your garage or taking on CARB or the automakers with some creative actions - it seems like it might be time that the crazies are taken seriously. One clip he did play was a scene that was cut from "Who Killed The Electric Car?" This was a bit of street theater, a staged funeral for the Ford Th!nk, that the studio asked him to take out. In the sequel, we might be seeing more scenes of the crazies, both on the streets and in the garages, when the film hits theaters in 2010. I'm ready now.
Listen here:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Keith Wakeham 11:49AM (9/27/2008)
As much as I like the idea of changing energy usage and fuels I was very disappointed in the original movie. I love how they made out the fact they had a giant check - a giant check that didn't actually cover the cost of the vehicles they wanted to buy because they didn't know how much they actually cost along with the fact that GM would have had to stock years worth of replacement parts if they sold a single one.
People don't look at the whole life of things. It takes 6 times the energy to recycle a lithium based battery than to just mine more lithium. All the platinum mined in the world fits in a 25'x25'x25' cube. The volt will sell for 40k and LOSE money. And GM is the bad guy how? Batteries are a solution how? Fuel cell catalyst exists at what cost?
We don't have a solution. Batteries have the capacity but not the cost. The cost is laughable. They need to come down to about 1/10th the current cost to be viable and the whole life needs to be considered. People who believe Lithium is our future don't understand the whole life aspect of things.
Reply
kert 1:06PM (9/27/2008)
Are you trying to imply that lithium makes the lithium batteries expensive ? Because it doesnt..
BlackbirdHighway 2:11PM (9/27/2008)
Toyota sold it's REV4EVs and they don't stock replacement parts for it. Toyota has not gone bankrupt or been thrown into a pit of fire, the world has not stopped turning...
Yet, this argument is always, ALWAYS pulled out as an excuse why GM could not have avoided crushing the EV1s.
BS!
Also, as a first electric car, the whole point was not to make money on it, but to start the process and begin building a market. The first cell phones that cost $1500 didn't make money either, neither did the first big screen TVs that cost $10,000, or the first of just about any new technology. That didn't mean that cell phones were a bad idea, only that further development was needed!
It's only when you get to at least the third generation product in any new technology that you get the volumes up and prices down enough to start making profit.
tankd0g 1:07AM (9/28/2008)
Moron, Toyota does make the replacement parts for the Rav4 EV, it's the law.
Chris M 1:59AM (9/28/2008)
"It takes 6 times the energy to recycle a lithium based battery than to just mine more lithium"? Where did you get that figure from? I sincerely doubt it, as recycling lithium should take less refining, thus less energy, than processing raw ore. That is true with aluminum, steel, copper, and most other recyclable materials, why should lithium be different? Platinum is not used in batteries or to make batteries, so it is irrelevant to this issue.
GM wouldn't be promoting the Volt if it would "lose money", the proposed $40K cost is much more than the cost of parts and labor to assemble it. The cost of development is substantial, but will be spread out over several years and hundreds of thousands of vehicles. In short, GM intends to make a substantial profit with the Volt in the long run.
Doug 11:53AM (9/27/2008)
Anyway to get the PowerPoint slides?
Reply
Sebastian 4:12PM (9/30/2008)
I'll email Chris and see if that's possible.
as2k 1:27PM (9/27/2008)
I see this 10-year parts availability claim connected to EV-1 stories all the time, but can't find any independent support of this claim and snopes is no help.
Anyone?
Reply
Chris M 2:07AM (9/28/2008)
The law requires an auto maker to honor their warranties. If the car is warranted for 10 years from initial purchase, the automaker must have repair parts available to cover possible warranty repairs during that time. After the warranty has expired, they have no further obligation, but might continue to carry parts if they think it would be profitable, or good customer relations to do so.
But the GM excuse for not selling the EV1 falls flat, as they could have sold them with a limited time warranty, or even on an "as is" no warranty basis, which would have quickly relieved them of the obligation to maintain a stock of spare parts.
Keith J. Wakeham 5:36PM (9/27/2008)
Kert: Just trying to say that mining of lithium is dirty and that when the easy to get lithium is used up, if we get to that point, then your batteries will get more expensive and not cheaper when they have to use recycled material unlike steel and aluminum.
BlackbirdHighway: A lot of politics get played. Autoblog has Gary Witzenburg who wrote 4 articles and worked on development of the EV1 that explains a lot of what went on. Look at it this way. When the EV1 came out people could do an EV conversion to a car for 5k in batteries in lead acid deep cycle. If you price A123 cells that you can buy as a consumer it is 55000 dollars USD just for the cells without battery management which is needed, but that is only for 16kwh which is the 40mile range of the Volt.
Cell phones still work on a subscription model, you don't get this in a car.
I don't know the legal side of stocking parts, but I know the car plant I work at parts are diverted to be stocked for a minimum of 10 years according to the area manager. Do you know for a fact parts were not stocked for the RAV4EV. I spoke from personal experience because I am in the auto industry.
Reply
TopaZ 6:48PM (9/27/2008)
Why would they HAVE to stock parts for the EV1? If I, as a lessee, sign a purchase contract saying "I am purchasing the EV1 for $X and I don't hold GM liable for providing any sort of parts or service."
Then GM could have cashed the giant check, and perhaps "open sourced" or sold the part specs to a third party company that would be interested in making the parts for the EV1 community?
tankd0g 1:07AM (9/28/2008)
Because we have these things called laws that require anyone producing a car for sale to provide a warranty and replacement parts.
tankd0g 1:19AM (9/28/2008)
Who the hell is going to purchase a $60,000+ car in 1992 with no parts or service? One that has caught fire several times and nearly burned down a couple homes. Think man.
Chris M 2:22AM (9/28/2008)
Tankdog: The law does require that a warranty be honored, but there is no law requiring a warranty be issued, especially for used cars. Legally speaking, as lease returns, these were used cars and could have been sold "as is", no warranty!
Mike!!ekiM 6:42PM (9/27/2008)
Ultra Batteries Solve Everything:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20105/
Reply
Chris M 11:29PM (10/04/2008)
Not really. The link you provided talked about combining ultra-capacitors with lead acid batteries. That does reduce the charge cycling of the lead acid, and improves the peak power output, but it also increases the cost and reduces the energy density. It might be suitable for some mild semi-hybrid applications, but is a big step backwards for any plug-in application.
FThorn 8:35AM (9/29/2008)
I applaud the desire for a re-visit/update of this 'story'. It would do everyone well to recognize significant work such as GM's Volt program, as a means to encourage GM and others.
Plus, I find it good that at least on the outset it appears there was no underlying bias, and only a pro-electric undercurrent.
The next decade of transportation will be an interesting one.
Reply
FThorn 8:42AM (9/29/2008)
I applaud the desire for a re-visit/update of this 'story'. It would do everyone well to recognize significant work such as GM's Volt program, as a means to encourage GM and others.
Plus, I find it good that at least on the outset it appears there was no underlying bias, and only a pro-electric undercurrent.
The next decade of transportation will be an interesting one.
Reply
Ed 9:22PM (10/08/2008)
If he's still taking names for the movie, I vote for "The Electric Car Strikes Back"
Reply