Who killed the electric car? The consumer

(Note: To learn more about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and their potential to solve the oil crisis, please read the series of articles titled “Twelve Hydrogen Facts” which is part of the Hydrogen Manhattan Project.)

Truth and fiction.

This is the story of plug-in battery vehicles.

For example, you can read the three quotes below for the truth about the content in the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?”  And you can watch the movie trailer at the bottom of the post if you want to see some really good fiction.

I am amazed at how fiction continues to rule when it comes to this technology.  One would think that the seriousness of the oil crisis would cause people to be ruthless in searching for the facts when it comes to what the viable solutions are.

Unfortunately, this is not true.  Most people prefer to believe what feels good.

By the way, you should prepare yourself for some more plug-in battery fiction at the upcoming Congressional hearings this week when the potential U.S. auto industry bailout is discussed.

Here are the quotes:

1.  Excerpt from an article titled “Conspiracy theories abound in EV1 flick” by Automotive News writer Mark Rechtin:

“Amazingly, the only ’suspect’ in the movie that is acquitted is the battery technology, although battery shortcomings kept electric vehicles from being market-ready. But that’s far from the only departure from reality that the film takes.

(’Who Killed the Electric Car?’) portrays a list of 4,000 hand-raisers — consumers who want more information — as a groundswell of demand for the GM EV1. But hand-raisers are not buyers. Typically, 4,000 hand-raisers equal about 50 purchasers.

Auto executives would break their momma’s legs for advocates like the EV1 fans in the movie. But were GM’s 800 EV1 buyers really worth a $1 billion investment?

Simply put, American consumers voted with their wallets against electric vehicles. Consumers had serious problems with a two-seat vehicle that could drive for only 80 miles before it had to be recharged for four hours. When a car isn’t profitable, it gets the ax, no matter how good (or not) it is. GM would probably kill the Corvette if it only sold 800 units.

The filmmakers also miss the economic truths of electric vehicles. Toyota’s RAV4 EV cost more than $100,000 each to build, far more than its $30,000 sticker price after incentives. The cost of its $32,000 battery pack isn’t scalable by volume. Who is going to make up the $70,000 difference?

The filmmakers gloss over those facts. Instead, they make the leap that consumers would have bought the EV1 in droves, if only GM and Big Oil hadn’t intimidated California regulators into spiking their electric-vehicle mandate.”

2.  Quote from GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz in an article on Moldova.org:

“‘The EV1 ‘died’ because it had limited range, limited room for passengers or luggage, couldn’t climb a hill or run the air conditioning without depleting the battery and no device to get you home when your battery charge ran low,’ Lutz said.”

3.  Excerpt from an article titled “GM’s EV1 — Who Killed Common Sense?” by Editor in Chief of Edmunds.com Karl Brauer:

“1. Rumor: There were 5,000 people who wanted an EV1, but GM wouldn’t let them buy it.

Fact: There were 5,000 people who expressed interest in an EV1, but when GM called them back and explained that the car cost $299-plus a month to lease, went between 60 and 80 miles on a full charge, and took between 45 minutes and 15 hours to re-charge, very few would commit to leasing one (not too surprising, is it?).”

How do you explain the difference between what is in the three quotes and what is in the movie trailer?  Please share your opinion in the comments section below.