I just rented and watched "Who killed the Electric Car". If you haven't seen it, you should.

[A HERETIC I AM]

I learned about this movie when i went and saw "An inconvenient truth" in the theater a few months back. I rented it and man...it will piss you off.

I lived in California from late 2001 until late 2004 and during that time i was a car hauler/tractor trailer driver. The movie centers on the EV1 built by GM. They made several hundred examples of this car and leased them to many people in SOCal, many of them celebrities. While i never transported an EV1, i carried several examples of the Electric Ford Ranger pickup from LA to a town near Sacramento where they were used by the city public works department. An infrastructure of charging stations was installed and the technology was improving to the point where these vehicles were capable of up to 300 miles on a charge.

The steps taken by the California Air Resources Board, the Car makers and the Oil companies to do away with the CA. State Zero Emissions requirements - effectively killing the need for such a car are disgusting. During the time i hauled cars in California, GM was successful in pulling every single EV1 off the road and sending them to the crusher. That's right, a perfectly viable, well made, inexpensive to operate vehicle was purposefully yanked from public view and destroyed.

SEE THIS MOVIE. If you have heard about it and not rented it yet, it is available at Blockbuster and more than likely through NetFlix.

Rent it. See it. Get Pissed off.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Good movie! I second that.

NGU.

[graywarrior]

2. Whole Foods in Sarasota has been playing it over and over...

just like they did An Inconvenient Truth.

[nam78_two]

14. Wow...good on them for doing what!

[poverlay]

3. It's in my queue and I'm already pissed off. nt

[gravity]

4. I haven't seen the movie but

I thought the GM removed the cars for economical reasons. If GM was able to make money off the car, they would have kept it.

[MindPilot]

5. I've heard stories that people offered huge sums of money to GM

to buy the cars so they could keep them, but GM wouldn't break the terms of the lease.

[gilpo]

8. That doesn't explain why they took them all back and crushed 'em...

There is no logical reason for that.

[A HERETIC I AM]

10. There are plenty of reasons, none logical, all economic.

GM, the other car makers and the oil companies have a huge investment that needs to keep you and I and all of us using the internal combustion engine. You use up to 4 oil filters every year. You use thousands of gallons of gas every year. Add to that all of the spare parts needed to keep an internal combustion engined car running for 100,000 miles and the after market money to be made adds up to thousands of dollars for each and every car on the road.

An electric car has effectively 2 major moving parts: The electric motor itself and the differential. It uses regenerative braking which means when you lift off the accelerator the car partially recharges itself. As a consequence, you don't wear out your brake pads nearly as often. Your brakes on an EV1 could last 100,000 miles or more.

See this movie. Trust me, you'll get pissed.

[gilpo]

27. I saw it. I did get pissed

[gravity]

11. It could be for liability reasons

BTW, GM is still researching electric cars, look at the prototype here http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

If it would have been profitable, then any company would sell it. No other company has brought out electric cars into the market since, and its probably because it won't be profitable.

[wtmusic]

16. Nonsense

* The electric car was deliberately and effectively killed by GM--not because the car was unprofitable, but because the car was too profitable--it would have spelled doom for their repair/parts sidelines, which contributes billions to GM's bottom line.

* Oil industry groups spent heavily on PR campaigns to help kill the EV1, and there is evidence of an partnership agreement (i.e., bribe) between Detroit-Oil to keep the ICE viable.

* Several companies brought out electric vehicles and they were all profitable (Toyota Rav4, Honda EV+, Ford Think). They were also removed from the market about the same time. Why?

* GM is not researching electric cars -- the Volt is a "concept" hybrid which will never see the light of day. Its sole function is to pacify critics, and it apparently is working to a certain extent.

http://www.altfuels.org/misc/onlygm.html

[B Calm]

6. I think Henry Ford killed it. link

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarselectrica.htm

[Pirate Smile]

7. It is also in the On Demand movies you can rent through your cable company, along

with An Inconvenient Truth and Iraq for Sale.

[Rosemary2205]

9. Jay Leno has a 1909 electric

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/1302886.html

"As far as electric cars go, the technology isn't really new. I have a 1909 Baker Electric that goes 110 miles on a single charge. A General Motors EV-1 goes maybe 120 miles. So in nearly 100 years we've only come 10 extra miles. You can take the Baker's Edison batteries, wash 'em out and use 'em again. They're beautiful-looking even though they're almost a century old."

Much more at the link written by Jay Leno, who most don't think of as an expert on cars but he certainly is in his own way.

[B Calm]

12. Check out the link above. Interesting history of the electric car..

[nam78_two]

13. Yup good movie

:kick:

[gravity]

15. Electric cars are just impractical

Its not a huge conspiracy, its just the technological limitations of batteries. The problem is that 1 pound of gasoline, is the equivilent of 400 lbs of lead acid batteries when it comes to energy. That makes a gallon of gasoline the equivelent of 3200 lbs of batteries, the weight of a midsize car.

The Tesla car uses more expensive batteries which has higher energy densities to get around this problem some. It still takes about 100 lbs of batteries to equal 1 pound of gas. The other problem is that the batteries are too expensive, making the car cost $80k, and the batteries have a limited life making it impractical.

The only way too make electric cars in the past was to use lightweight cars, that only have a limited range. The ev1 is only a light two seater, and putting a economical combustion engine in the car would get it over 45 mpgs anyways. The electric car would only replace cars with already high fuel effeciency so the benefits are marginal.

There is also the charge times compared to gasoline refilling.

Car manufactures are trying to get around this problem using hybrid technology, allowing the gas engine to compensate for the shortcomings of pure electric cars. Thats where all the research is going into right now, since they can make the cars compete with combustion cars, and make a profit.

Hydrogen fuel cells are another solution in the future. This is an electric car that stores its power in hydrogen, allowing the fuel to have energy densities comparable to fossil fuels while still using an electric engine. Hydrogen has its drawbacks right now though, but is more practical than the current battery technology, and it looks like the direction the future is heading towards.

[wtmusic]

17. Where do I start.

The electric car is the perfect choice for about 90% of driving that Americans do every day--round trips to work, total daily commute of under 50 miles. You plug it in at night, and it's ready to go tomorrow. Your trip costs about 4¢/mile, and there are very few maintenance costs.

Hydrogen fuel cells are another pacifier which will never see the light of day. They've been 20 years in the future for, oh, about 20 years now. Designed solely to keep your eye off the ball, while the oil industry supplies your fix.

1) Vehicles currently cost $1M.
2) No infrastructure.
3) Fuel is bulky and costly.

[gravity]

20. I agree some

but the other 10% of the driving time is the problem. The car is not going to be very succussful, if people have to have another car for their longer trips.

I think hybrid technology just needs to get better, so that people can rely solely on electricity for daily commutes, but have a supplemental gas engine for the longer drives.

[wtmusic]

25. Most couples/families have at least two cars anyway

and if one of those cars takes away 90% of household income devoted to buying fuel from oil companies--it's not hard to recognize a huge incentive on the part of the petroleum industry.

I'm currently converting a '97 Ford Aspire to 100% electric power. It will cost under $10,000, and cut our fuel bill by 60%:

http://www.mpelectriccar.org

[gravity]

29. It doesn't take away income from car companies

They have incentives to bring out electric cars if it can become profitable. Power companies would benefit from it too.

[wtmusic]

34. It's not profitable

but only because there is so much added in parts/service. The only reason the EV1 was developed at all was in response to CA's zero emission mandate, which was repealed under extremely heavy lobbying by the auto industry (btw, power companies have always been big proponents of EVs).

The auto industry never wanted to have anything to do with seat belts or airbags either, but they had to be squeezed. Environmental responsibility is a bitch, and they need to be squeezed again (if you haven't seen the movie, see it).

[A HERETIC I AM]

30. The movie discusses "Plug-In Hybrids"

and there is agreement that they are a completely viable COMPLEMENT to this issue. The larger point is that there is technology that exists today that makes these (electric) cars practical to drive and inexpensive to own.

[gravity]

40. The technology hasn't changed much in the past 100 years

Their were electric cars 100 years ago, and they have the same limitations today.

If a profitible car could be made, then their would be a company selling the car making money. There is an economic incentive to do so.

[wtmusic]

42. You have no idea what you're talking about

Battery technology hasn't changed in the last 100 years?

Please, see the movie, and come at this subject with just a little background.

[A HERETIC I AM]

18. They are impractical for one reason: They don't work for everybody. Just 90% of us.

The fact is, most people that use a car as a commute vehicle could easily use a car that only gets 100 miles from a charge. Drive to work, plug it in, when you come out you have a fully charged car.

I understand your point but much of what you point out is taken up in the movie and explained in great detail. Also, Hydrogen is not the panacea that many make it out to be. Much of the hydrogen that will be used will come from fossil fuels anyway so we end up replacing one finite source with another, not to mention that promoting hydrogen allows the oil companies to keep their fingers in the transportation pie instead of allowing electricity producers (the production of which can be renewable and sustainable) to enter into that market. Hydrogen will only become practical when there is an efficient way to extract it from seawater. The answer to that is Nuclear Fusion but that is still a long way off.

It isnt a "Huge Conspiracy", no. Just one large enough to remove a completely viable vehicle from American roads that was gaining acceptance and was on the cusp of surpassing expectations.

BTW, the cost of a NiMH battery has been coming down steadily, so the idea that a decent electric car has to cost eighty grand is a 2001 era fact, not a 2007 fact.

[wtmusic]

19. Chevron/Texaco owns the patent on NiMH technology

so NiMH will likely never be viable for electric cars -- by design.

Look to Li-Ion:

http://www.valence.com/

[A HERETIC I AM]

23. Yes...discussed in the movie...thanks for the reminder...

They bought the tech and are basically supressing it.

Like i said, discussed in the movie.

[cyborg_jim]

22. Eh?

Much of the hydrogen that will be used will come from fossil fuels anyway so we end up replacing one finite source with another,

I don't know by what magic you think batteries are going to get energy that isn't going to depend on current methods of generating electricity so I fail to see where your objection is coming from.

Oh and memory lock is a bitch of a problem for batteries that hydrogen doesn't have.

[A HERETIC I AM]

28. Current methods of generating electricity include Solar and wind...

as I am sure you are quite aware. The production of electricity is not done solely through coal, fuel oil or natural gas. One of the major points i took from this film is that the concept is a sustainable one.

Please pardon my ignorance. I am not an engineer or a battery expert but it is my understanding that NiMH batteries do not suffer from "memory lock" to nearly the extent that NiCad batteries do.

[cyborg_jim]

32. Meh

Current methods of generating electricity include Solar and wind...

And currently do you think these methods of generating electricity could possibly hope to supply enough energy to replace the demand for petroleum in cars?

It is all very well noting that electricity can be generated by such mechanisms but it just ignores the very real problems we have with extracting, storing and utilising this energy.

The production of electricity is not done solely through coal, fuel oil or natural gas.

And yet, for some reason I do not comprehend, you seem to imply that for some reason the production of hydrogen would be.

You seem to imply for some leap of logic I do not fathom that it would in fact require the energy requirements of nuclear fusion to have a hydrogen economy.

Please pardon my ignorance. I am not an engineer or a battery expert but it is my understanding that NiMH batteries do not suffer from "memory lock" to nearly the extent that NiCad batteries do.

Hydrogen doesn't suffer from it at all.

I don't think replacing the environmental problems of petroleum based fuels with the environmental problems of battery chemistry is a sound decision.

[A HERETIC I AM]

37. Please tell me how Hydrogen is acquired.

Where does it come from? How is it collected?

[cyborg_jim]

38. Electrolysis of water is the simplest mechanism

There is no sense in which fossil fuels are an inherently good supply of hydrogen.

-> Wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

I didn't realise that it was that efficient via the chemical process but then we never covered efficiency when I did chemistry.

[A HERETIC I AM]

41. Exactly

and it is an EXTREMELY INEFFICIENT way to produce it.
From Wikipedia:

"When the energy supply is chemical, it will always be more efficient to produce hydrogen through a direct chemical path. But when the energy supply is mechanical (hydropower or wind turbines), hydrogen can be made via electrolysis of water. Usually, the electricity consumed is more valuable than the hydrogen produced, which is why only a tiny fraction of hydrogen is currently produced this way."
(emphasis mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

THAT is why i brought up electricity needed to produce Hydrogen efficiently. It CAN NOT BE DONE EFFICIENTLY using Electrolysis of water. The electricity needed to produce a given amount of hydrogen with this method makes it impractical on a large scale. Large scale production of hydrogen can only presently be done efficiently by getting it from natural gas.

Thus, keeping the oil companies in the loop, like i said in a previous post.

Hydrogen is not going to be the answer for quite some time to come.

[jpak]

50. Electrolysis is extremely energy efficient ~85%

1 J of electricity invested yields 0.85 J of hydrogen...which is much better than steam reforming of natural gas to produce hydrogen.

Norsk Hydro has been using industrial-scale electrolysis for decades. Iceland is using electrolysis to produce H2 at fuel cell vehicle filling stations - today.

California and British Columbia are establishing the infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles - today.

...and hydrogen fuel cell buses are in service in Scandinavia, Iceland and the US (CA and CT)...

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, plug-in flex fuel hybrids, etc. will all be parts of the answer...sooner than most naysayers think...

[wtmusic]

31. No, the $1M price tag for hydrogen is the bitch of a problem

and if by "memory lock" you're talking about memory effect, Lithium Ion batteries have none whatsoever:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery

[cyborg_jim]

33. What price tag is that then? Cite please.

They do of course still have a limited cycle lifespan.

Hydrogen does not.

[wtmusic]

39. Li-Ion batteries have a lifespan longer than the rest of the car

long enough?

"The first problem with transportation fuel cells is that they are very expensive. Even today a hydrogen fuel cell car costs like a million dollars. And the vast majority of that cost has to do with the fuel cell. And they are typically more than 1,000 dollars a kilowatt whereas an internal combustion engine is about 30 dollars a kilowatt. So, a fuel cell has to come down by a factor of 50."
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/635

"Hydrogen cars are probably technological dead-ends, like Betamax or gas turbine cars, absent at least two major scientific breakthroughs."
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2004/v57n3/hydrogen.htm

"Trying to perpetuate our existing high-energy lifestyle with hydrogen is a pipe dream."
http://www.culturechange.org/hydrogen.htm

[gravity]

26. No, 90% of the time

I drive 3 hours to my school a couple time a year, and while I drive it short distances the majority of the time, my car would be useless if it didn't allow me to make those occasional long commutes.

Also the tesla roadster costs over $80k

[A HERETIC I AM]

36. Your car would be useless to you because you couldn't make 2 trips a year?

Interesting. What happens if your car is in the shop when you have to make one of those two trips? What do you do then?

Look, I understand they aren't for everyone and you are a perfect example of a person who this vehicle would not suit. But there are many millions of Americans who could use these types of cars.

I am not trying to create acrimony here. This thread is merely intended to bring attention to a film i feel warrants it. If you are interested, rent it. If you aren't, that's ok with me.

Peace...and good luck with your studies.

[Javaman]

46. I read all of Gravity's posts and is it just me or does this person sound like

a spokesperson for GM?

Spewing all the talking point that come out against electric cars.

>shakes head in wonder< Some people are fine with keeping their heads in the ground, I guess.

[gravity]

47. Its just the facts

I'm just tired of people acting like its a conspiracy, when the facts are that electric cars just aren't practical with our current battery technology. Electric cars just can't hold enough energy in the car compared to a combustion engine. This has been know for over a hundred years, hence no electric cars, and the technology hasn't advanced enough to overcome these drawbacks.

The only technology right now that can store enough energy for an electric car is a hydrogen fuel cell, but it has its own problems. Even then, using energy off the grid still uses coal power, which pollutes more than gasoline.

If you are concerned about the envoronment, their are more economical and practical ways of doing it. Instead of spending $40k on a small two seater car, you could spend that money on solar cells, better insulation, and more effecient appliances for your home. The real problem is total energy consumption, and replacing one energy source with another isn't going to help if we don't cut back total consumption.

You can wait for an inexpensive battery with high energy density to be invented, but that might never happen. Its not because of the oil industry either, science and chemistry only allows batteries to do so much.

[IDemo]

48. "using energy off the grid still uses coal power, which pollutes more than gasoline." Wrong.

This type of comment tends to pop up with unsurprising regularity on any thread having to do with electric vehicles. An actual analysis of the carbon outputs of battery electric vehicles versus internal combustion powered ones can be found without a great deal of effort:

http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml - EVs have the unique advantage of using electricity generated from a variety of fuels and renewable resources. The overall mix of power plants in the U.S. is 55 percent coal, 9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil (9). The other 32 percent include nuclear power and renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal.

Many EVs critics point out that charging thousands of EVs from aging coal plants will increase greenhouse gases such as CO2 significantly. Although half the country uses coal-fired plants, EVs recharging from these facilities are predicted to produce less CO2 than ICE vehicles. According to the World Resources Institute, EVs recharging from coal-fired plants will reduce CO2 emissions in the country from 17 to 22 percent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/energy_efficiency.php - the Tesla Roadster offers double the efficiency of popular hybrid cars, while generating one-third of the carbon dioxide. Compare the Tesla Roadster against other sports cars and the results get better still: it is six times as efficient and produces one-tenth the pollution, all while achieving the same performance and acceleration. (Wheel-to-well energy efficiency chart included)

[gulfcoastliberal]

21. You're speaking of Davis, CA - re: electric Rangers

They also use the electric Honda CR-V.

[A HERETIC I AM]

24. Thats it, thanks.

I delivered and picked up several Electric Ford Rangers from their PW yard about 3 blocks from I 80. The last one, if memory serves was a retrieval that i took to a Ford facility in Torrance, not far from the Long Beach Airport. Must have been late 2003 or so.

[laundry_queen]

35. We rented it one night.

My husband and I were so pissed off, as you said. For all the naysayers in this thread, they obviously haven't seen the movie because it addresses each and every point that carmakers and oil company apologists have made.
That GM was frightened enough to destroy all the cars, instead of simply letting those who already had them buy out their lease and then stop manufacturing them says a lot. They probably realized the low maintenance required and saw that they would unable to make any profit on spare parts and oil changes. The service department in any dealership is their REAL money maker.

[MindPilot]

43. I watched it yesterday, and it wasn't' just GM

ALL the manufacturers pulled their electrics back and destroyed them. The EV1s were crushed; the others were literally shredded.

As other posters have said the movie addresses all the points, fuel cells, charging times, government and corporate decisions. The was no shortage of demand for the vehicles yet GM literally made to choice to stop building electrics in favor of Hummers.

What I don't get and the movie really didn't explain is why it had to be an either or. For the car companies it's a win-win. Hummer customers aren't going to buy an EV and EV people won't buy Hummers so sell both. For the oil companies, I can't imagine EVs making much of dent in overall gasoline sales. And it's not like cars are the only things that use gas. Airplanes, ships, trucks, construction equipment aren't going electric anytime soon, and fuel is not the only petroleum product by a long shot. The electric car is not going to put oil companies out of business.

Nor is it going to shut down dealer service departments. Take it from someone who spent half of his working life in one. Most dealerships couldn't give less of a shit about the service department anyway; they would just as soon it not exist, but it is a necessary evil. The electric car will still require some periodic maintenance; it has steering, suspension, cooling, climate control, accessories, trim, brakes, tires, lights, all the subsystems a gas car has except the stuff related directly to the engine. They are still going to crash, and they are not going to replace all the gas cars in a week.

For most of us in an urban setting--where it counts--a 120 mile range would easily handle our daily commute. If you have to make a long trip, rent a gas car.

It seems like I'm missing something here that made that car non-viable, but I was smarter than the entire Bush Administration in knowing there were no WMDs in Iraq, perhaps it shouldn't surprise me that I'm in the group that's smarter than the entire oil and automotive industry.

[jmowreader]

44. It was a two-seat car that cost $40,000

An UGLY two-seat car that cost $40,000.

Oh, and it goes 75 miles on a charge that takes eight hours to put in the battery.

And that's if you live in a warm state. In a cold state, because batteries put out less power when they're cold, it doesn't go that far.

It's a good car for the urban areas in California, but no one can make money making a product that's just perfect for two MSAs and full of "yes, but"s for the rest of the country.

The real deal would be something like a plug-in hybrid version of the Scion xB. It's got cargo space. It's got passenger space. It's got enough room to hold some serious batteries. But forget the "you can plug this into a 110v outlet for slow charging" shit and plug the car into a dryer outlet.

[MindPilot]

45. And the Aston-Martin is a two-seater that costs $100,000...so what?

You are wrong about the range and the charge times--that was the first generation. And ugly? No where close to the level of ugly of GM's other offerings.

"The first generation EV1s used lead-acid batteries in 1996 (as model year 1997) and a second generation batch with nickel metal hydride batteries in 1999. Some of the Gen 1 EV1's were refurbished and upgraded to Panasonic Lead Acid batteries.

The Gen 1 cars got 55-to-75 miles (90-to-120 km) per charge with the Delco-manufactured lead-acid batteries, 75-to-100 miles (120-to-160 km) with the Gen 2 Panasonic lead-acid batteries, and 75-to-150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge with Gen 2 Ovonic nickel-metal hydride batteries. Recharging took as much as eight hours for a full charge (although one could get an 80% charge in two to three hours). The battery pack consisted of 26 12-volt lead-acid batteries holding 67.4 MJ (18.7 kWh) of energy or 26 13.2-volt nickel-metal hydride batteries which held 95.1 MJ (26.4 kWh) of energy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1


You would prefer to sit back and let pollution, peak oil and global warming take its toll on the planet because electric car technology isn't perfect right out of the gate?

The EV1 also holds the electric land speed record at 184mph.

[jmowreader]

49. You're comparing Aston Martin to GM...

somehow, I think that's the first time that EVER happened.

However, it may be an apt comparison: the EV-1 was a hand-built vehicle, as are Aston Martins. 'Course, Aston Martin is set up to sell hand-built cars at a profit, and GM's not.

Okay, let's play around a bit and assume, just for the sake of assumption, that GM hadn't killed the EV-1. That they sold it instead of leasing it.

Further, let's assume that they managed to get 200 miles out of one charge in California (or 100 miles out of a charge in New Hampshire), that they figured out how to make the car be profitable at a $50,000 price point, and that they totally worked out the logistical train behind it. IOW, they got everything exactly right.

We're still talking GM, the company who issued the Aztek and who STILL can't figure out the minivan thirty fucking years after Chrysler nailed it, but let's be all cheery and shit and pretend they got this right.

Now stand back and ask yourself something: Who would buy it? This is essentially a $50,000 second car. You need a different car to pick up the kids from daycare. To get grandma out of the hospital. To go grocery shopping. This car won't meet all your transportation needs. It will barely meet one: commuting to work.

It's not AS ugly as some of GM's other offerings, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still ugly.

You asked, "You would prefer to sit back and let pollution, peak oil and global warming take its toll on the planet because electric car technology isn't perfect right out of the gate?" so I get to ask you one: does it make any sense to build an electric car that sits on dealers' lots until the wheels rust off because 80 percent of the car-buying public can't afford one and the next 15 percent don't want it? Hollywood celebrities will all buy one so they can prove just how eco-conscious they are, but very few other people will. Electric vehicles only get to save the planet if they're being used.

[MindPilot]

52. "You're comparing Aston Martin to GM..." LOL!

I started by writing "Corvette" and then I thought as long as I'm dragging out the hyperbole, why not go all the way? :D

I see your point about the possibility--however remote--of GM getting something right. In this case they probably came closer to getting it right than they had since the '56 Nomad and I firmly believe that the possibility of that kind of success scared the hell out of them. "Oh shit, we have a product people like! How are we going to justify firing workers and offshoring plants now?"

I also see your point about it not being the ideal family sedan. It's not--or more accurately--wasn't nor did it try to be. But neither is a Miata, S-2000, Mustang, Corvette, Viper, Ranger pickup, or the Nissan 240 I drive. It's not like automakers haven't ever supplied a niche market before (note the aforementioned vehicles). Hell any of the big three could build an electric in one corner of the factory and make money one it or at least not lose too much.

No it's not for everybody, but then what vehicle is? I'm a single guy, no kids and all of my driving falls within the range; it would be the perfect car for me. One disadvantage that I haven't heard discussed is people who don't have access to off-street parking so they can hook up to the charger.

Don't know if you saw the movie or not, but demand certainly wasn't an issue. I attempted to get one in '98 I think it was. I didn't know which GM dealers were handling them so I wandered into a Cadillac dealer to ask to get on the waiting list. They gave me a number to call, I did, left a message, and never heard back. If GM had put half as much effort into selling the EV as they do producing commercials telling me I'm a bad American because I live in the city and don't drive a full-size Jimmy, they likely would have sold a lot more of them.

The bottom line is it didn't get a chance. So it's a pricey sports car today, five or ten years of development, it could easily be a roomy four door sedan or even an SUV.

And to answer your question about as much sense as it does to build something that uses so much gasoline that when it hits three bucks a gallon, no one will be able to afford to drive it? Oh wait they already do that.

[Pathwalker]

51. It's sitting on top of my DVD player. I've been arguing

with my husband for MONTHS about GM, and the auto industry, over their efforts to impede progress in fuel efficiency standards as well as coming up with alternatives to oil based fuels. I'm hoping this movie will help him see the light. It will be a big step for him.

[Lisa]

53. based on number of copies, the waitlist for this at my library is even longer ...

... than for Al's movie! (Yes, I did give them an extra DVD -- of both films -- every little bit helps!)