Who Killed the Electric Car?

Q&A Footnotes

[1]
a)"Detroit automakers have spent millions attempting to unplug California's effort to put electric cars on the road. And so far, Detroit's succeeding. ", Michael Gougis, New Times LA, 6/21/01)

b) “Rushing electric vehicles to market could jeopardize consumer acceptance, say world's automakers”, Business Wire, 6/27/95

[2] 
p. 184, The Car That Could: The Inside Story of GM’s Revolutionary Electric Vehicle, by Michael Shnayerson. Random House, New York, 1996

[3]
ibid., p. 184

[4]
“Now that mandate overshadowed the whole story, as GM struggled to develop this EV-1 over the next years, as the program stumbled and was essentially put on a shelf. All along there was this mandate, which now the carmakers had to somehow figure out how to accommodate. They didn't like it. So all 3 American car makers, including GM, rallied together, spent a lot of money lobbying, also did this in partnership with the oil companies, I'm sorry to say. The oil companies spent far more than the car companies. And the result was that they got this mandate ordered down, delayed, pushed aside last December.” (“Living on Earth”, episode broadcast on 11/22/96, featuring interview with Michael Shnayerson)

[5]
Taken for a Ride: Detroit’s Big Three and the Politics of Pollution, by Jack Doyle. p. 314. Four Walls Eight Windows Press, 2000.

[6]
a) The Bush administration has joined General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler in their lawsuit to overturn the state's historic Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. The federal action is a direct and unprecedented assault on California's ability to protect its environment. California must fight back. ("Bush vs. California", Sacramento Bee, 10/15/02)

[7]
a)"For drivers of electric vehicles, however, the surge in prices has provided an occasion for smugness.At about 1 cent per mile, the cost of travel is at least 75% cheaper for those who plug their cars into the wall every night." (source: "GAS COST HAS SUV DRIVERS FUMING; ELECTRIC-CAR OWNERS NOT SHOCKED; TRANSPORTATION: PLUGGED-IN MOTORISTS--PAYING 1 CENT PER MILE--ARE SMUG AS SOME USERS OF GAS GUZZLERS ARE FORCED TO CUT BACK.", by Alison Cohen, LA Times, 4/11/99)

b)"It makes you think of fuel economy differently; the RAV4 got 3.5 miles a kilowatt-hour. A power plant can turn oil into electricity at the rate of about 13 kilowatt-hours a gallon; that means the RAV4 was getting the equivalent of about 45 miles a gallon, about double the mileage of the gasoline version. At about 8 cents a kilowatt-hour, that's about 2.3 cents a mile, compared with 4 cents a mile for gasoline at $1 a gallon." ("The Electric Home-Drive Acid Test", by Mathew L. Wald, Ny Times, 12/18/98)

c) “"In regard to cost of operation, fuel costs for both traditional and electric vehicles vary according to age and condition of the car or truck, driving habits, distance driven and location (urban vs. highway), and the price of gas and electricity. Generally, an electric vehicle, which has a range of one hundred miles, requires $3 worth of electricity in the U.S. to recharge fully (at eight cents per kilowatt-hour) for a cost of about three cents per mile. This compares to about 7.5 cents per mile for an internal combustion vehicle that gets twenty miles per gallon on the average, with a price of $1.50 per gallon in the U.S." (source: "The global market for electric vehicles" by William Baumgartner and Andrew Goss, Business Economics, October 2000)

[8]
a) “Currently, gasoline is at $ 3 a gallon and electricity costs about 25 cents a kilowatt. A plug-in hybrid using mostly electricity and at times gasoline could cost the consumer 20 cents per gallon of gasoline at our electricity rate.”("Port, partners woo hybrid car industry: enthusiasts say new breed of vehicles get great fuel mileage, improve air quality and could produce manufacturing jobs for the Valley", by Mari Herreras, Wenatchee Business Journal, 10/1/05)

b) “Assume your utility charges you 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for off-peak usage between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Let's also assume you drive a plug-in hybrid that operates on electric power alone for about 25 miles, requiring 6 kWh of energy to recharge its batteries. To travel 25 miles in an average car, you'll pay more than $ 2 in gas, and in some areas, closer to $ 3. To travel the same distance in a plug-in hybrid would cost you only 30 cents, or about one-tenth of a conventional car. If you drive only 25 miles a day, your trip will cost just pennies, and your visits to the gas station will be few and far between.”   (from "The potential of plug-ins: get 160 mpg at a cost of just 30 cents per "gallon"!greener cars: viewpoints" by Bill Moore, Mother Earth News, 10/1/05)

[9]
a) confirmed via email with David Smallen, Director of Pub. Affairs, Bureau of Transportation Statistics on 3/20

b) “While ditching the car entirely might not be practical for everyone -- according to a 2002 survey by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the average Americandrives 203 miles each week -- cutting back on needless car trips will shrink your global footprint; each person who eliminates 20 miles of extra driving a week also eliminates nearly 1,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year, according to the Center for the New American Dream. "Try consolidating shopping trips, so you're not just darting out and buying things," says Pennybacker. "All of these combined efforts can make a difference."   (“Shrink Your Ecological Footprint”, Bridget BenzSizer, The Washington Post, 3/12/06)

c) “According to the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Americans drive an average of 29 miles and spend some 55 minutes a day in their vehicles.” (“5 tips: saving money – and gas”, April 7, ’04, Gerry Willis/CNN Money Contributing Columnist)

[10]
a) email communication with Chelsea Sexton on 3/20: “The Gen II cars were first shown at the Dec 5th 1998 b-day party (we had a birthday party for the EV1 in 1997, 1998, and 1999), but weren't leased to customers until Nov. 1999. This was done for multiple reasons- some technical, and some, I'm sure, because the MOA requiring vehicles to be delivered with advanced batteries (NiMH vs. PbA) went into effect in 1999. I think we'd have gotten credit for doing it early, but I also know that GM held the cars out hoping to defeat the mandate and not have to deliver them at all. So yes, you did see press on the cars much earlier, and there were a few demos built and running around in our hands early (quite often we'd have them at events and things w/o the public realizing what we had, since the cars looked pretty much the same), but the first 6 were delivered in Nov. 1999. We then held them for another few weeks and delivered the rest of 1999's allocation in the last 3 weeks of December.”

[11]
a) GM switched to more potent nickel metal hydride batteries that brought driving range to 100 miles and recharge times to 6 hours, but they cost twice as much as lead acid. ("Hybrid popularity grows as SUV models take hold", Jim Mateja, Chicago Tribune, 11/4/05)

b) the Ovonic battery can deliver a range of 100-130 miles, easily topping conventional batteries. ("CAR BATTERY-MAKER RUNNING OUT OF TIME ", David Sedgwick, Automotive News, 3/12/97)

c) phone confirmation with Dave Barthmuss, 3/10/06

[12]
a) General Motors is selling its stake in a battery-making joint venture to Texaco Inc. in hopes that an energy company can lower the costs of nickel-metal-hydride batteries. GM still plans to buy batteries for future electric and hybrid vehicles from GM-Ovonic LLC, a 6-year-old venture with Ovonic Battery Co. GM says the venture won't be able to make advanced nickel-metal-hydride batteries affordable unless it can increase production. That means gaining nonautomotive customers, said GM spokesman Jeff Kuhlman. ''General Motors is not the company to take these batteries to another market outside of automotive,'' he said.GM has invested about $60 million in GM-Ovonic since it was launched in 1994 and owns a 60 percent stake in the company. GM-Ovonic is in Troy, Mich., and has a plant in Kettering, Ohio. It supplied nickel-metal-hydride batteries to GM's EV1 electric car. ("GM will sell its 60% stake in battery maker to Texaco", Joe Miller, Automotive News, 10/23/00)

b) Texaco Inc. said Tuesday it has agreed to buy General Motors Corp.'s majority share of a company that develops high-capacity batteries for hybrid vehicles that run on gas and electric power.The companies would not put a value on GM's 60 percent share of the company, GM Ovonics. The company had been a joint venture of GM and Energy Conversion Devices, of which Texaco has a 20 percent stake. ECD's chairman is former GM chairman Robert Stempel. ("Texaco To Buy GM's Share in Ovonics", AP Online, 10/10/2000)

[13]
email communication with Tom Gage of AC Propulsion, on 3/31: “Sheraz,I would rephrase as: ‘Using a new generation of Lithium-ion batteries, electric cars in development today can go 250 to 300 miles per charge and are four times more energy efficient than hydrogen fuel cell cars.’”

[14]
Email communication with Tom Gage of AC Propulsion on 3/31:

"Currently, a Lithium-ion battery pack that provides 100 mile range for an electric vehicle runs more than $10,000 or $100 per mile of range. However, much of that cost comes from battery assembly and the very low production volume. As adoption of the Li-ion technology for plug-in hybrids and electric cars increases, the cost is predicted to decrease by at least half."

[15]
a) General Motors is selling its stake in a battery-making joint venture to Texaco Inc. in hopes that an energy company can lower the costs of nickel-metal-hydride batteries. GM still plans to buy batteries for future electric and hybrid vehicles from GM-Ovonic LLC, a 6-year-old venture with Ovonic Battery Co. GM says the venture won't be able to make advanced nickel-metal-hydride batteries affordable unless it can increase production. That means gaining nonautomotive customers, said GM spokesman Jeff Kuhlman. ''General Motors is not the company to take these batteries to another market outside of automotive,'' he said.GM has invested about $60 million in GM-Ovonic since it was launched in 1994 and owns a 60 percent stake in the company. GM-Ovonic is in Troy, Mich., and has a plant in Kettering, Ohio. It supplied nickel-metal-hydride batteries to GM's EV1 electric car. ("GM will sell its 60% stake in battery maker to Texaco", Joe Miller, Automotive News, 10/23/00)

b) Texaco Inc. said Tuesday it has agreed to buy General Motors Corp.'s majority share of a company that develops high-capacity batteries for hybrid vehicles that run on gas and electric power.The companies would not put a value on GM's 60 percent share of the company, GM Ovonics. The company had been a joint venture of GM and Energy Conversion Devices, of which Texaco has a 20 percent stake. ECD's chairman is former GM chairman Robert Stempel. ("Texaco To Buy GM's Share in Ovonics", AP Online, 10/10/2000)

[16]
“Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. ("ECD") (Nasdaq: ENER) announced today that its subsidiary, Ovonic Battery Company, Inc.  ("Ovonic Battery"), has filed suit in federal court in Detroit, Michigan against Matsushita Battery Industrial Co., Ltd. ("MBI"), Toyota Motor Corporation, Panasonic EV Energy Co., Ltd. and several related entities for infringement of patents held by Ovonic Battery. 
MBI and Panasonic EV Energy Co. supply Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries used in the Toyota Prius gasoline-electric hybrid car sold in the United States by Toyota Motor Corporation.  The lawsuit charges that MBI's hybrid electric vehicle batteries, battery components and battery systems infringe patents held by Ovonic Battery.”  (“ECD Announces Ovonic Battery Is Filing A Lawsuit Against Matsushita Battery “, PR Newswire, 3/6/01)

[17]
“Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. (ECD Ovonics) (Nasdaq: ENER) today announced that it and COBASYS LLC, its 50-50 manufacturing joint venture with ChevronTexaco Technology Ventures LLC, have entered into a settlement agreement with Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (MEI), Panasonic EV Energy Co., Ltd. (PEVE), and Toyota Motor Corporation with respect to patent infringement disputes and counterclaims involving nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries before the International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration. Under the terms of the settlement, no party admitted any liability.Under the terms of the settlement, COBASYS and PEVE will cross license each other for current and future patents to avoid possible future litigation. COBASYS and PEVE have agreed to a technical cooperation agreement to advance the state-of-the-art of NiMH batteries which are widely used in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). COBASYS and PEVE have also established a joint development program to collaborate on the development of next-generation high performance NiMH batteries for HEVs.”  (“ECD Ovonics Announces Settlement in Patent Infringement Dispute”, PR Newswire, 7/7/04)

[18]
“ Hydrogen fuel cells are about 10 times too expensive now," he said, adding that they cost about $50,000 versus roughly $5,000 for a gas-powered engine. (“GM's fuel-cell cars still face obstacles”, Jim Mateja, Chicago Tribune, 1/10/05)

[19]
a) California Air Resources Board’s web page on fuel cell technology, http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/en/gv/driveclean/vtype_fuelcell.asp

b) BBC News, “Disposable Planet” web site, ‘Energy Alternatives to Oil’ web page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2002/disposable_planet/energy/alternatives/hydrogen.stm

[20]
email confirmation by Joseph J. Romm, PhD on 1/31/06

[21]
“ a fuel cell ends up utilizing only 45% of the original energy used to make the hydrogen, the battery electric vehicle returns better than 80 percent of the energy stored in its battery.”  (from a study, “Carrying the Energy Future: comparing electricity and hydrogen for transmission, storage and transportation”, Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment, Patrick Mazza & Roel Hammerschlag, June 2004, p.25) 

[22]
"We did a study on what it would take to support 1 million fuel-cell vehicles in the 100 largest cities in the U.S. with 70 percent of the population. We found it would require 12,000 stations at a cost of $12 billion to retrofit them for hydrogen," he said. (“GM's fuel-cell cars still face obstacles”, Jim Mateja, Chicago Tribune, 1/10/05)

b) “General Motors Corp has made major steps in developing a commercially viablehydrogen-powered vehicle and expects to get the emission-free cars into dealerships in the next four to nine years, a spokesman told Agence France-Presse. GM also expects it will be able to 'equal or better gas engines in terms of cost, durability and performance' once it is able to ramp up volume to at least 500,000 vehicles a year, spokesman Scott Fosgard said….The International Energy Agency has said that if conditions are right,hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells could play key roles in weaning energy users away from oil, gas and coal.'In the most favourable conditions, hydrogen fuel-cell vehicleswould enter the market (in mass numbers) around 2025 and power 30 pct of the global stock of vehicles by 2050 -- the equivalent of about 700 mln vehicles,' the IEA said in a recent report.”   (“GM sees mass-market hydrogen cars by 2010-2015”, AFX International Focus, 3/3/06)

[24]
a) “At the height of the EV wave in 1997-98 about 5,000 all-electric vehicles were on the state's roads, and battery charging stations were installed at Sacramento sites from Arden Fair mall and the Wells Fargo Building downtown to the Mel Rapton auto dealership on Fulton Avenue.By 2000, the number of electric cars had dropped to 3,000, according to California Air Resources Board researchers. Today, the number is down to "around 900, and getting smaller all the time," said board spokesman Jerry Martin.”  (“Electric cars bypassed New auto technology arises Hybrids, hydrogen fuel vehicles are the latest favorites.”, John Ortiz, Sacramento Bee, 5/25/05)

b) “LADWP, alone, with financial assistance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Mobile Source Reduction Committee, has installed more than 450 electric public chargers in municipal buildings, shopping malls, museums, stadiums and other major facilities.”  (“City and LADWP Officials Laud Toyota for Selling Electric Vehicles”, Business Wire, 12/14/01)

c) “An air board report last fall found that there are only 400 charging stations statewide.” (“State may pull mandate of 10 percent electric cars by 2003”, Paul Rogers, San Jose Mercury News, 1/25/01)

[25]
Argonne National Lab. Reference: “Development and Use of GREET 1.6 Fuel-Cycle Model for Transportation Fuels and Vehicle Technologies”, by MQ Wang, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, June 2001

[26]
a)According to the Energy Information Administration, the “Electric Power Generation By Fuel Type” states that coal accounted for 50% of the electric power generation in ’04.

b) “Policies to Promote Non-hydro Renewable Energy in the US and Selected Countries”, page 6, February 2005,  Energy Information Administration.

[27]
Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (using California energy grid) :

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle:  39%

Battery Electric Vehicle:  67%

(source: David L. Modisette, Exec. Director, CA Electric Transportation Coalition, email communication on 12/28/05 & “Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles”, California Air Resources Board staff report,  8/6/04)

[28]
conversation with Tim Lippman, PhD, Assistant Research Engineer, UC Berkeley’s Institute of Transportation Studies, on 11/29/05: “In CA,   our grid mix is much more different, it’s only as high as twenty  percent coal. And then we have twelve- thirteen percent renewables, and a law that says that has to go up to twenty percent and beyond.”   

[29]
phone conversation with Southern California Edison’s Ed Kjaer, December, 2005

[30]
“But environmentalists call such concerns overblown. Most electric cars are recharged at night, noted Hwang, when demand is down. And if 5,000 were charging at one time, it would represent 0.08 percent of peak demand.”  (“State on verge of gutting goals for electric cars; proposal by Air Board cites lack of battery breakthrough”, Paul Rogers, San Jose Mercury News, 1/25/01)

[31]
“Plug-in hybrids actually will contribute less climate-altering carbon dioxide (CO2) than gasoline. 30 percent of the grid electricity that would be used by plug-ins comes from non-CO2-producing or CO2-neutral sources, including nuclear and hydroelectric plants, biomass and renewables such as wind and solar energy. This means that plug-ins would produce only about 8 pounds of CO2, or about one-third as much as a conventional 24-mpg gasoline engine. Burning coal gives off other pollutants, including mercury, particulates and sulfur, but these either are captured, or soon will be captured, using advances in technology Here's why: A conventional gas vehicle releases about 24 pounds of CO2 and travels about 24 miles on 1 gallon of gas. It would take about 6 pounds of coal, creating just 12 pounds of CO2, to produce enough electricity to travel the same distance in a plug-in hybrid. What's more, not all our electricity comes from coal; roughly at newer power plants.” (“The potential of plug-ins: get 160 mpg at a cost of just 30 cents per "gallon"! Greener cars: viewpoints”,  Bill Moore, Mother Earth News, 10/1/05)

[32]
conversation with Tim Lippman, PhD, Assistant Research Engineer, UC Berkeley’s Institute of Transportation Studies, on 11/29/05: “Baseload plants  are large hydro, nuclear, coal and fairly efficient natural gas  power plants. Then there is also some wind power that is coming in at night. So if  you can  get offpeak wind power, that is essentially zero emissions!  What’s exciting about this is that when we shift to electric cars, instead of trying to clean up millions of  tailpipes,  you can think of it as cleaining up the power grid, and as the grid gets cleaner (since we are using it more efficiently, harnessing the baseload plants at night and not using the peaker plants during the day), the vehicle fleet gets cleaner too. It’s not just a pound of pollutants but also what time of day they are being emitted but, some of those pollutants are photochemical, they concentrate more during the day. Moreover, if you are getting the power to an EV from a smoke stack, it’s much easier to control one smoke stack than a thousand tailpipes, and the smoke stack is about 200 or 300 feet off the ground. And the emissions mod3eling shows that the height of the stack matters – with tailpipes they are right at ground level, making the concentration of the pollutants that much greater and thus more hazardous. But with a smoke stack, you certainly have to worry about what’s down wind  (towns, people, etc.).”

[33] 
a) “Mr. Stewart acknowledged that more than 4,000 people had requested more information about the car. "Yet in 2001," he said, "when the company asked those people if they would sign a lease for a car should one become available, less than 50 people wanted to go to the extent of actually leasing." (“Leased and Abandoned: Revolt of the EV-1 Lovers”, Chris Dixon, New York Times, 10/22/03)

b) Chelsea Sexton interview comments and other’s interview comments, including strange, detailed questions required to be answered by the lessee

c) “The most prominent model, General Motor's EV1, was discontinued two years ago, and the tooling from its Lansing, Mich.-based plant was placed in storage. GM refused to say whether it will resurrect the EV1. Similarly, GM won't say if it will revive its S-10 Electric Pickup. Nor will DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Nissan, Ford or Toyota announce plans for resurrecting their full-size electric vehicles, most of which have been discontinued”  (“California mandates electric cars by 2003”, Charles J. Murray, Electronic Engineering Times, 2/5/01)

d) “So far, GM has manufactured 1,000 EV1s, and only 600 have been leased. Kuhlman said it is unlikely that the company will embark on another batch of 500 EV1 with 400 still waiting to be shipped. However, the company will "watch the market" and keep all of its EV1 equipment and the manufacturing space in Lansing.” (“GM Says It Will Continue to Make EV1s.”, Electic Vehicle Online Today, 1/20/00)

[34]
a) “A new poll, commissioned by environmental groups, concludes 8% of California's voters, or 1 million people, would "definitely" buy an electric car for between $ 20,000 and $ 30,000. The poll was conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, a Santa Monica opinion research firm.” (“Oil companies advance RFG against rising anti-oil feelings; reformulated gasoline”, Mark Emond, National Petroleum News, June 1994)

b) “Supporters of alternative energy cars released a poll Friday showing 60 percent of Californians support a state mandate that requires the nation's leading automakers to produce 30,000 electric vehicles for sale beginning in 1998.The survey of 800 registered voters by the polling firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates also found 28 percent of the respondents would be likely to buy an electric vehicle if it were available today for less than $30,000.”  (“Poll shows support for electric cars”, UPI, 5/6/94) 

[35]
a) “The nation's Big Three automakers are seeking a public relations firm to turn public opinion against the low-emission vehicle in California, and New York environmentalists believe they're headed this way.'New Yorkers should not be intimidated by this campaign,' Lee Wasserman, executive director of Environmental Advocates, said at a Wednesday press conference. 'Electric vehicles have enormous potential. . . . We're calling on consumers not to be fooled, and were calling on Gov. (George) Pataki to stand firm.' Environmental Advocates has obtained a copy of a request for proposals to public relations firms in California issued by the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, a coalition formed by the Big Three.The document, handed out at the press conference, asks firms ''to create a climate in which the state (of California's) mandate requiring automakers to produce a fixed percentage of electric vehicles beginning in 1998 can be repealed.'” (“Big Three automakers taking out contract on electric cars”, Julie Carr Smyth, The Times Union, 7/20/95)

[36]
a) “Last year was the warmest in a century, nosing out 1998, a federal analysis concludes. Researchers calculated that 2005 produced the highest annual average surface temperature worldwide since instrument recordings began in the late 1800s, said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.” (“Last Year Was Warmest in a Century”, Malcolm Ritter, Associated Press, 1/25/06)

b) “After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be ''dire consequences'' if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.”  (“CLIMATE EXPERT SAYS NASA TRIED TO SILENCE HIM”, Andrew C. Revkin, NY Times, 1/29/06)

[37]
a) “New Yorkers' risk of developing cancer from air toxins is estimated to be 68 residents per million. In California, the risk is 66 residents per million. The EPA assessment evaluated toxins including heavy metals, such as lead; volatile chemicals, such as benzene; combustion byproducts, such as acrolein; and solvents, including perchloroethylene and methylene chloride. Benezene alone contributed a quarter of the individual cancer risk identified in this assessment, the primary source of it being vehicles, according to the study.”  (“EPA: New York, California have the dirtiest air”, AP, 3/22/00)

b) “California air ranks amongst worst in country”, Devlin Barrett, AP, 3/23/06

[38]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-2114109,00.html Toyota president, Katsuaki