Who Killed The Electric Car? 1/9
Amid a volatile climate of ever-changing gas prices, this documentary delves into the short life of the GM EV1 electric car — a fuel-efficient auto that was once all the rage in the mid-1990s and now has fallen by the roadside. How could such a green-friendly vehicle fail to transform lives? Through interviews with government officials, former GM employees and concerned celebs, filmmaker Chris Paine seeks to find out.
Video Rating: 0 / 5
25 Comments
Feb 16, 2011 1:53 am |
@anakonba1 Actualy we don’t use much biofuel. The main propelant here is pure diesel (and most of our diesel cars get far better mpgs, and CO2 emissions as a matter of fact, than most hybrids do), and after the diesel its LPG! A lot, and I really mead A LOT of people converte their petrol cars to LPG cars, simply because it’s half the price of a gasoline! (which in my country is almost 1,5€/L, that’s over 2$ a liter!!!!) Alcohol plays marginal role (Scandinavian countries), and old cooking oil!
Feb 16, 2011 2:03 am |
The EV1 gets destroyed, we keep having to buy foreign oil and we Invade Iraq. To think that I could have spent my teens living in a country breaking its addiction to oil for fueling cars.
I think that a good way to publicize the superior performance of electric cars would have been to make one to compete in NASCAR that would outperform the others if possible.
Feb 16, 2011 2:39 am |
Europeans are leading the ultimate destruction now. Biofuels that come mainly from rainforests will destroy this planets most unique nature. People dont understand how this will actually speed up climate change and what’s worst: destroy rainforests. Even green parties participate in this lie because they can claim it’s renewable. It’s not, the rainforests will not renew. CO2 emissions are actually worse than regular fuel. We need the electric car now more than ever.
Feb 16, 2011 3:04 am |
you know when they suck all the gas up from earth,it leaves hollow pockets that are unstable,and become sink holes,and can couse earthquakes.
Feb 16, 2011 4:01 am |
why do they keep killing earth,they need the shit knocked out of them!!!! guess it would kill the sell of gas,and that would take some money out of thier pockets,so they are all like a hitman knocking off earth!!!!
Feb 16, 2011 4:06 am |
There’s a Sequel!:
Go to facebook dot com slash revengeoftheelectriccar. My bad (youtube won’t allow URL’s)
Like it to become a fan, 10,000 fans means we get to see the trailer!
Feb 16, 2011 4:53 am |
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if u are interested in a REAL free energy machine then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it is probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
Feb 16, 2011 5:51 am |
I’m no greenoid, but if there’s a cheaper, more efficient means of transportation, I’m all for it.
Feb 16, 2011 6:49 am |
4:45 “No matter what kind of car we drive,every gallon of gas we burn adds 19 Lbs of Co2 to the air”
7lbs of Gasoline turns into 3x more gas by weight?
Burn? Since when is combustion,a exothermic chemical reaction,”burning”?
Sorry, but the main output of Combustion is heat and force not 3x more co2 then gasoline
Unless there is a Catalyst converter making Co2(Carbon Dioxide) from CO it’s deadly CO(Carbon Monoxide) making cancer causing smog
Co2 can’t be spontaneously created in Combustion
Feb 16, 2011 7:43 am |
The Baker Eletrics?
Yeah, they were considdered “women’s cars”
Feb 16, 2011 8:32 am |
THE STONECUTTERS!
Feb 16, 2011 8:56 am |
@alldaygamer
removed by youtube or THE OIL COMPANIES????
Feb 16, 2011 9:15 am |
Maybe the recent events in the gulf will remind people that it’s time to find a mainstream alternative.. we don’t have to live this way anymore.. we don’t have to harness explosions in order to propel ourselves around this world…
Feb 16, 2011 9:53 am |
Imagine an environment where cars are less than 25% of the vehicles on the road and instead there would be various modes of mass public transportation such as subways, electric buses – large and small, personal capsule monorail lines or ground vehicles controlled by satellite, battery powered and pedal powered bicycles. Electric or not, there are still way, way, way too many cars on the road.
Feb 16, 2011 10:12 am |
@earsneyes1
Okay, I see what you mean, but I still think its exaggerative… and not necessarily manipulative. Unfortunate, sure, but not a control of society.
Feb 16, 2011 10:56 am |
@earsneyes1 For the short term, a windfall profits tax on the energy companies after $1.25/gal would hold the prices in check, retroactive from the time they started to rise, and incentives and tax credits for alternative fueled and electric autos and trucks. Further, chemistries can be altered in current petrofuels that can increase btu density and reactivity inside the engine that will increase mpg and cut emissions substantially without aftertreatment.
Feb 16, 2011 11:24 am |
@earsneyes1 Here’s the best example I can give. 8-10 years ago, a household can bring in $35000 a year and support a home, a family of 3-4, two cars and have money left over to save and spend. Now, if you can’t bring in a combined income of $52000 or better, you are working poor, and once again most of it driven by energy costs. Given the economic conditions, and the record profits made by all sectors of corporate America, folks need a break.
Feb 16, 2011 11:46 am |
@KillerPikmin In your instance your family managed, but that cannot be said for others. And it’s not an exaggeration; when you are down to your last, because your paycheck can’t cover everything, and you still have to go to work working a job that can’t cover everything, you have to make a choice. People do go through that everyday, and being at the mercy of the oil cartel and their mood swings is a form of control.
Feb 16, 2011 12:09 pm |
@earsneyes1
Families that are in bad enough shape to have to chose between the two can still get help and support. (At least they have jobs and cars) My family used to be in terrible shape. Our car broke down at least twice a month, and we couldn’t find work… But we still managed to get food in some way. So, I see what you are saying, but I find it to be a bit exaggerated. Usually it isn’t a choice of work or food, its the choice between food and, say, going to the park or your Dad’s house.
Feb 16, 2011 12:42 pm |
@earsneyes1
That makes sense, but satellites and probes still aren’t cars, the technology would still need to be adapted in SOME way, at least the tech you mentioned. NASA is usually ahead of the curve with such things… Too bad people underrate it so much
Feb 16, 2011 1:26 pm |
@earsneyes1 Think of all this as economic slavery. The technology has been available for years to make battery packs that offer a range comparable to gas cars, just look at the satellites that orbit our planet for years and years with little or no maintenance. They are not solar only. The Mars Rover is another example. If that technology were applied to cars and trucks, the internal combustion engine would be rendered obsolete.
Feb 16, 2011 1:49 pm |
@KillerPikmin “When you have to make a decision to eat or fill up your car……” The comment meant that households that do not make a lot of money have had their food budgets compromised to fill up the car to go to work. Wages have remained flat for the last 8-10 years and have not kept up with the cost of living, while everything has been skyrocketing.
Feb 16, 2011 2:01 pm |
@KillerPikmin The percentage of income needed to operate a vehicle or heat a home used to be really low. For example, in trucking, the cost was 15 cents for every dollar produced, including insurance and maintenance. Now it costs 50-65 cents for every dollar to operate, with the increase in the cost of fuel being the driver. I just filled up my compact car and remember when it cost 14.00. Now it costs 32.00-40.00/week. That’s 1700.00 to 2000.00 per year, 2.5 times what it used to be.
Feb 16, 2011 2:23 pm |
@earsneyes1
I understand what you are saying, but if people really wanted the Electric cars in mass, don’t you think the companies would jump on that and control it too? That was my point… To not do so would be dumb for anyone who finds it as a threat, such as the oil companies. By the way, I don’t know what you mean when you say, “When you have to make a decision to eat.”
Feb 16, 2011 3:03 pm |
@KillerPikmin Here’s the problem with what you are saying. The oil companies have to control the alternatives to survive. They survive quite nicely, thank you, at our and your expense. This is more than just controlling a market sector, it’s about controlling the society. Look at what regular working people have to give to stay warm and go to work. When you have to make a decision to eat or fill up a car, it’s gone too far.
Leave a Reply