Fear drove destruction of electric vehicles, says EV advocate
In an interview with the OC Weekly, Doug Korthof states how automakers' lies and alliances with oil producers led to the demise of the electric vehicle (EV). According to this Autoblog Green post, the two industries and their supporters (e.g., mechanics) feared the loss of their profits if EVs had fully developed. That is why the automakers, according to Korthof, were so vehement to literally crush the EVs once their leases expired despite people willing to purchase them. He then continues to expound on why EVs could have prevented the conflict in the Middle East and the new promise offered by plug-in hybrids.[Source: OC Weekly via Autoblog Green]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Cervus 8:54PM (5/19/2006)
This seems far too tinfoil hat-ish for me to take seriously. At best, GM's EV1 had a range of 135 miles and took a full 8 hours to charge fully. And the RAV4's battery pack cost about $26,000.
The idea is great. But the technology just isn't there.
Reply
Gary 9:21PM (5/19/2006)
And the fact that GM would have been liable for warranty, environmental (disposal, etc.), and safety claims (and judges have thrown out liability wavers many times) had no effect on their decision.
Reply
donald douglas 9:24PM (5/19/2006)
But the technology just isn't there.
by Cervus
>
> ahh you mean wasn't, I truly think the battery technology is better and could be a hell of alot better if automakers, yes ! automakers put more effort into it ! i truly believe if they were investing the money into the technology they would have found a better battery then the lithion ion battery and a car would travel at least 300 miles. why do you think toyota jumped on GM's sale of subaru's share of the company, cause they know Fuji heavy industry is investing tons of dollars in battery technology, and that will help the hybrid vehicles range and mpg bigtime !
Reply
Ebm14 9:25PM (5/19/2006)
Electric cars were invented long ago and so was Standard Oil. Guess which one lasted due to greed and trickery?
Reply
blain lamprecht 9:49PM (5/19/2006)
0 stars for reality... libs keep hittin that bong
Reply
Jeff 9:56PM (5/19/2006)
Who do people always act like it is the automakers that want to keep us addicted to gas?
They make money from selling us cars; they don't make money from oil sails. If they thought they had a product that lots of people would want to buy and that was reliable and would protect them from lawsuits, they would have put it on sale. The accusations against oil companies might have a bit more truth in them, but I'm still completely unconvinced.
The truth is the technology is still underdeveloped and unable to meet the needs we have for our cars.
Reply
Jeff 9:59PM (5/19/2006)
Right. So that was supposed to be oil sales.
Though oil sails would be pretty awesome.
Reply
Squog 10:03PM (5/19/2006)
And BTW, NASA never landed on the Moon, it was all filmed in a movie studio.
Reply
goat 10:26PM (5/19/2006)
What, exactly, is the incentive for the automakers to sell us a particular type of vehicle over another?
These people are simply nuts.
I don't really want an electric vehicle, because, overall, they aren't terribly efficient, when you factor everything in.
Reply
Nate Wesley 10:35PM (5/19/2006)
I say Korthof's theories are believeable if only for the very fact that there aren't ANY electric cars in mass production for public sale or use at all. You mean to tell me that there hasn't been any advancement past what the first EVs were doing ten years ago?
No interest in electric cars? That sorta implies that people LIKE buying gas, even for their Prius. That makes about as much sense as this past years Oscar-posturing that the theater was the only true movie watching experience...never mind the advancements in (and profits from) DVD players, home theater systems, and on-demand entertainment services.
And Korthof's points about not messing with future repair profits is true as well--as evidenced by an increased emphasis on dealer service shops ("Get your tires and batteries at your neighborhood Ford dealer!") and the reluctance of sharing computer-related and electrical repair information with independent mechanic shops.
So, why aren't there any electric versions of cars like the Yaris, Aveo, or even Europe's Smart car running around in the 'States? I'm glad I read this article...I even stumbled onto a link for the upcoming Sony Pictures documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Counting the new Superman flick, that makes two summer films I'm looking forward to.
Reply
Nate Wesley 10:41PM (5/19/2006)
Let me stand corrected on 'the first EVs', as they certainly DIDN'T make their debut ten years ago--but I maintain my original point in my first paragraph: I can't buy that the technology isn't any better than it was in 1996. Gotta disagree with you, Jeff.
Reply
shiznannigan 10:56PM (5/19/2006)
"No interest in electric cars? That sorta implies that people LIKE buying gas, even for their Prius."
---
They like it a lot better than having to park their car for 8 hours after triving just 130 miles. Oh, and given the still-high sales of large cars and SUVs, people seem to like large vehicles too. And most EVs are not large.
Reply
AM 11:24PM (5/19/2006)
Okay, so why would Chevron buy the technology if nobody wants it and it's useless???
Reply
Nat 11:59PM (5/19/2006)
"At best, GM's EV1 had a range of 135 miles and took a full 8 hours to charge fully."
Isn't that more than enough range for the average person's daily commute? Mine used to be 12 miles each way. 135 is more than enough for that, plus errands, plus... a lot of whatever.
It's a farce to say that the technology isn't there. It just wasn't packaged, priced and marketed in such a way as to register on anyones purchase list.
Reply
KanseiZM 12:38AM (5/20/2006)
#13 - precisely right. Most people could fully get around and do all of their everyday tasks on the EV1. I see one or two of them every day (one silver, one red)... is that not normal? I thought I had red somewhere thet GM was recalling the rest of them but I still see them around town (Henrietta, NY.. part of the Rochester, NY metropolitan area). The first time I saw them I had no idea what I was looking at as they were parked together outside Panera bread.
I would LOVE to have an electric vehicle. My commute from my apartment to campus is around 5 miles each way, and I only make the round trip twice a day at most. During the summer, the apartment to work trip is I believe 20 miles each way but again, that would still be well within the limits of the EV1.
Basically what I'm getting at is that most people have commutes that would easily fall within the range of an electric vehicle from many years ago. I can't help but think that technology has improved since then.
Has anyone out there tried or thought of hacking "hybrid synergy drive" by like fooling the computer into thinking the engine is running? With the regenerative braking (dunno if the EV1 had this, probably did) I wonder what the range of a Prius would be? You could make it a plug-in hybrid and use it as your commute vehicle but if you decide that you need to go on a long drive just flip a switch and pay up to big oil.
Reply
Andrew 1:31AM (5/20/2006)
"That sorta implies that people LIKE buying gas, even for their Prius. "
Why aren't tires made of wood? People aren't in love with tires, but they do want what rubber provides: good ride, long wear, good traction.
Likewise people don't like gas (they are taught it is evil) but they like what it does. As in long range and low cost.
Best case range was 145 miles, but worst case was 60 miles. I commute only 8 miles to work, but there are days I would not make it (many errands, etc) and this is a pain. If you get stranded once a month that is way too much.
Are these people saying that the conspiracy includes every major automaker including the Japanese? Man those voices in your head must be loud.
Reply
Ian 1:48AM (5/20/2006)
"libs keep hitting that bong" LOL. Dumbass. I'm a "lib" and think this was a bong-inspired post. EV is cool but as another poster notes the tech is just not there yet. When you can charge in under five minutes and make it 400 miles on a charge then it will be there.
Reply
http://financenstuff.blogspot.com/ 2:01AM (5/20/2006)
Seems like the car company just don't want to be in charge of building the infastructure needed to power any new alternative energy cars. The electric cars will require the users to install special outlets in their garages. I remember reading how one big fear the car companies had was the danger of having people manhandling high voltage cables on a daily basis. But of course the proper design should make these things stupid proof. The hydrogen car requires new fueling stations to be built. of course the car companies don't want to get involved with that.
Reply
kazek 5:43AM (5/20/2006)
sorry for going off-topic, but I need help: could anybody explain to me, what "transplant oem's" and "automotive transplant" are? thx!
Reply
Stedwoo 5:48AM (5/20/2006)
A car company in cahoots with an oil company. Boy never heard of that before GM Street Car Conspiracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Stedwoo
Reply