Science Forums 2

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by LiquidAlchemist

I just saw this movie a few days ago and thought it was excellent. I thought the movie really put the spotlight on how the Oil Companies of the World have had such a strong influence on America and how much of a strong hold they have on us and even our Government.
Anyway, I'm just curious to know what your opoions are on the movie? Do you agree on who is Guilty and who is not Gulty on killing what could have been the wave of the future for transportation?

I’ve been meaning to see this movie since I noticed it in a nearby theatre – it’s well reviewed, and said to present a good summary of the “rise and fall” of zero-emission vehicles in the 1990s, especially with regards to California’s “2% by the year 1998” initiative. I haven’t yet, so can’t give a first-hand opinion.

I strongly agree with how much opposition they show toward oil companies in this movie. The fact that these people make 55,000+ every minute from shooting this stuff from the ground is really sickening (plus the fact that they do what it takes to denounce the existence of Global Warming is worse.)

Unfortunately, the manipulation of science to promote commercial ventures is not confined to energy companies – nearly every industry, from fast food to pharmacology, appears to tend toward the ethic of “it’s only unethical if you get caught”. This likely illustrates an ingrained property of human nature, thought that’s a topic for another thread.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

The electric car is dead because they suck when compared to a regular car. If they were practical they would be around. They are not practical, so they are not around.

That’s certainly one of the main explanations given, but fails to explain some objective data, such as the refusal of GM to allow the purchase of leased EV1s when the program was halted in 2003.

Where does the electricity come from that charges an electric car?

For a small introduction, the electricity comes from existing household electric utilities – these cars are just plugged into a 110 or 220 V outlet. In the case of an EV1, via a bulky “stay at home” unit that allowed the car to be charged using an inductive “paddle” rather than a conventional plug.

One should note that much of the popular and political enthusiasm for electric cars has to do with their potential to improve urban air quality, rather than their ability to be charged by electricity from a flexible variety of generation sources.

I’m skeptical of conspiracy theories. It appears that, most of the time, business decisions are driven by the desire of company leaders to maximize profits (although these decisions are sometimes spectacularly wrong). However, the failure of ZEVs to gain even a modest market foothold in the US, despite government support and popular interest, deserves serious public discussion and analysis. If “Who Killed the Electric Car” can promote this, it’s done a public service, and should not be dismissed as a “crank documentary”.