I was reminded of this story recently while browsing top gear videos on youtube.
I stubmuled onto this video which was created/published back in 1997.
If you watch the video you will note that at the end of the video Quentin Willson's review is quite positive and is positive about the future of these cars. He concludes:
What do I think; it's very refined, very quick, and very drivable. In essence a jolly good little car. But the batteries suck, the range is appalling and if you had to buy one it would cost you a whopping 35,000 pounds But let me leave you with this thought: ten years ago mobile phones were the size of suit cases, and cost 2,000 pounds. Today they're the size of calculators and they're giving them away. Make no mistake the days of the internal combustion engine are definitely numbered.And remember this was in 1997, over 15 years later and we have only got a few hybrids and some plugin hybrids with very few and far in between electric cars which are considered luxury and exotic (if you afford those) you would have a better choice and can afford the gas not to worry about the environment as much although there are many which opt to get it and I applaud them.
As you can see his reference above to cell phones is absolutely spot on, we can also look at computers and even how cell phones have become computers (also known as smart phones) which are way more powerful than the computers of the year this video was created. Our battery technology has greatly advanced and the cost greatly reduced. The electric motors are much more advanced and even the materials of the car building are stronger and lighter as well as cheaper to build, once put into a mass production run.
The funny thing about these EV1 which were created by GM, they were never sold, only leased. And once they became popular they were all pulled off of their owners hands (which made them very angry) and crushed. A great documentary about this is called Who killed the electric car?
So let me point you to the culprits (or murderers) of this great piece of technology; most likely non-other than the oil barons of the world. It's pretty easy to see that no one else would oppose this technology being wide spread and reducing smog, emissions of harmful gasses as well as keeping our air and planet a little cleaner with a much lower cost to the common middle or even lower class income families.
To solve these issues I have an article that tackles how to get rid of the corporations responsible (or should I say irresponsible) to these and similar matters.
But if you are somehow only interested in this issue, we can see that the technology is there, the demand is there but the supply is cut at the root. The only way to stop our use of oil is to simply stop the supply. The only way occupy movement can stop this disastrous destruction of our planet is to get on the inside and simply not allow our species to ruin this planet for the rest of us. We must not agree to doing the dirty work even for the amounts of money they would provide.
Note: I do understand we can't wake up and simply stop pumping and using it, but we really need to work hard to phase out the usage and production of this dirty mess. Think about it; we are the ones (99%) that do what the 1% ask to do, we must stop this at an instant and have a moral stance to hold back and not do their dirty work. That's the way to win.
Update Oct 2012:
A reader has pointed me to this inforgraphic article on green cars and how consumers should consider where the energy comes from. If the city produces the energy required to charge your car is created from coal or other dirty means the effect on the environment is probably just as bad as the gas required to burn inside a traditional combustion engine.
The argument is that in those places traditional engines might be a better choice.
I disagree. For many reasons but one of the most important reasons: electric engines are MUCH more efficient in the distribution of energy from a limited battery power. In fact they even get most of the energy BACK into the battery when breaking! That is one fact that will make you think that those articles are either written by misinformed citizens or simply paid off by some of the same culprits in the above sections of "Who killed the electric car?"
Second reason to disagree: electric engines are cleaner in the local area. While the energy derived from coal is very dirty and horrible for the local environment, the power plants are normally farther from cities. Meaning the local city will remain somewhat clearer of smog and people walking near your car will not have to hold their nose.
Finally, the main reason to disagree; even though at the moment your city might use coal this can change in the future. You might move to a better city with the electric car, or you could put up solar panels and get off your city's grid altogether.
So either way you slice it, electric cars are ALWAYS a better choice.
Post your thoughts in the comments.