# data[].attributes.body
Electric car use by country

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Electric car use by country varies worldwide, as the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles is affected by consumer demand, market prices and government incentives. Plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) are generally divided into all-electric or battery electric vehicles (BEVs), that run only on batteries, and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), that combine battery power with internal combustion engines.

# data[].attributes.body
Government press release

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Backed by major car manufacturers

Major car manufacturers BMW, Nissan, Renault, Toyota and Vauxhall are all backing the Go Ultra Low campaign in a ground breaking partnership with government to debunk common myths and misconceptions that put drivers off switching to electric or hybrid cars, such as cost and how far the vehicles can travel before being recharged.

Electric car owners do not have to pay car tax or congestion charges and many chargepoints are free to use. The cars cost from just 2p a mile, which means a family that drives an electric vehicle 10,000 miles in a year would save around £1,000 on fuel costs each year.

Hundreds more charging points

There are already more charging points than filling stations in London, but to make driving an electric car possible for everyone, the £9 million funding will be used to create hundreds more charging points across the country, including 140 new rapid chargepoints which can charge an electric car in less than half an hour. This will cement the UK's position as one of the best for electric vehicle recharging networks in Europe.

One of our most promising green industries

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said:

Electric cars are one of the most promising of our green industries and we want to secure the UK's position as a global leader in both the production and adoption of these vehicles.

The extremely low running costs of electric cars help drivers save money and we are allocating more than £9 million to boost chargepoints across the country to help drivers to go green.

This means we can lower UK emissions and create high-tech engineering and manufacturing jobs to boost our economy.

The announcement comes as the Deputy Prime Minister visits iconic transport venue Ace Cafe, just off the North Circular in North West London, where he will meet managing directors, staff and apprentices from leading motoring companies BMW, Nissan, Renault, Toyota and Vauxhall.

Transport Minister Robert Goodwill said:

This campaign is about opening people's eyes to the advantages of ultra low emission vehicles.

They are incredibly cheap to run and we're giving grants that knock thousands of pounds off the pricetag at the point of sale. This is great news for the consumer and for industry, with the UK well-positioned to take the lead on the development of these advanced technologies.

The Go Ultra Low campaign is backed by 5 household names from industry: BMW, Nissan, Renault, Toyota and Vauxhall.

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said:

This is a significant development as government and some of the country's leading automotive brands pool resources to fund a campaign that will raise awareness of the benefits and capabilities of these new technologies. The Go Ultra Low campaign will help the public understand how these new cars work and how they could be a perfect fit for their personal, business or fleet needs. Given the importance of running costs and environmental performance to new car buyers, we hope the campaign will encourage more people to consider going ultra low.

Further information

1. There are more than 6,000 public chargepoints across the UK.

2. The £9.3 million allocation will come from the £37 million for electric vehicle infrastructure announced in July 2013.

3. The government has also committed to invest £5 million to introduce electric vehicles across government and wider public sector fleets this year.

4. A new website, www.GoUltraLow.com, will let people match their own needs with the ultra low emission vehicle that's right for them, as well as providing a wealth of information highlighting the advantages of these vehicles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nick Clegg's drive to make UK world leader in electric cars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Major car manufacturers BMW, Nissan, Renault, Toyota and Vauxhall are all backing the Go Ultra Low campaign in a ground breaking partnership with government to debunk common myths and misconceptions that put drivers off switching to electric or hybrid cars, such as cost and how far the vehicles can travel before being recharged.

# data[].attributes.body
Consumer research DFT

# data[].attributes.body
SMMT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When executives from General Motors visited the trading floors of JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley-the two firms handling the auto company's initial public offering- they were given a standing ovation from the bankers. Maybe the rest of us should join in. Less than a year and a half after the company declared bankruptcy and seemed headed for ruin-averted only by an expensive government bailout-GM on November 16 set a record for the largest I.P.O. in U.S. history, and shares kept rising on November 18 once the stock opened for trading. Although GM has a long way to go before it can pay off the government's $50 billion investment, it seems well on its way.

But there's more good news for greens. GM-once synonymous with the gas-guzzling SUVs that eventually helped sink its business-has reemerged as a smarter, leaner and more environmentally friendly car company. Chevrolet-one of GM's main brands- announced today that it will be investing $40 million in clean energy projects throughout America, with a goal to reduce 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. (That's roughly equivalent to one year of electricity use for nearly a million homes in the U.S., or the carbon footprint of the 1.9 million cars Chevy expects to sell in the U.S. over the next year.) The projects will be varied-from promoting smart sensors and solar panels to contributing to forestry projects around the country-and they'll be carried out over the next three to five years. The programs were put together with input from outside environmental experts, like the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Center for Environmental Policy at Bard College.

To be sure-yes, it's that part of the story-these investments have more to do with public relations than changing the core of the company. While he notes that GM has reduced its manufacturing emissions 60% since 1990-though the company has shrunk considerably since-GM vice president for marketing Joel Ewanick says the company wants to change. "We've talked a lot about being a different car company," he told me yesterday. "We want to evolve from where we've been." Investing in wind farms and planting trees will be part of that.

What really matters, though, will be the kind of cars that GM manufactures. And here they really do seem to have a winner. On the same day that GM shares were once again being sold on the stock market, the Chevy Volt-the company's long-awaited plug-in electric car-was named 2011 Green Car of the Year, narrowly edging out the all-electric Nissan Leaf, which is also just hitting the streets. (Unlike the Leaf the Volt isn't a pure electric-it's runs on an battery-powered electric motor for an average of 40 miles a charge, before switching to a gas engine when the battery is depleted.) And the car is selling well, even with a $41,000 price tag (though tax credits help whittle that number down). General Electric just announced that it will be buying 12,000 Volts to augment its corporate fleet. It's not clear yet, however, just how quickly electric like the Volt will sell. A recent survey by Pike Research found that consumers were intrigued by electrics, with 44% of respondents interested in a plug-in hybrid like the Volt-but with little willingness yet to pay a big premium over what a conventional car would cost.

Still, things are looking up for GM and the Volt. I've followed the development of the car with more than the usual interest, visiting GM's R&D center in Warren, Michigan in 2008 to see the car in development. Back then I had a chance to drive a prototype-a Chevy Malibu with the guts of what would be the Volt:

I can see the future of the automobile - I just can't quite hear it. I'm riding around General Motors' secure proving grounds in Milford, Mich., in what from the outside looks like an ordinary Chevrolet Malibu. But inside it couldn't be more different. The test car isn't powered by a gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine, like nearly every automobile since the first Model T rolled off Henry Ford's assembly line in 1908. Nor is it a hybrid like Toyota's fuel-efficient Prius with a gas engine assisted by an electric motor. This Malibu is electric, powered by a 400-lb. lithium-ion battery nestled beneath the floorboard - an energy source that is not only silent but entirely emission-free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transportation: GM Goes Green, Gets Green

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When executives from General Motors visited the trading floors of JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley-the two firms handling the auto company's initial public offering-they were given a standing ovation from the bankers. Maybe the rest of us should join in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
electric cars electric vehicles hybrid gasoline-electric battery neighborhood plug-in phev hev bev solar wind renewable policy oil peak climate warming global nuclear coal fossil bicycle scooter transit rail lithium hydrogen fuel cell

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EV WORLD.COM : The 'Future In Motion'® Since 1998

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EV World is your Internet portal to the world of electric-drive vehicle technology from electric bicycle and scooters to range extended electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and much more. Learn about why electric cars are the future in motion. Find electric cars and buyers guide for electric vehicles of all sizes, capabilities and prices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The University of Michigan plans to open the first campus-based autonomous vehicle test facility this fall.

A 32-acre playground for researchers testing self-driving cars, the Mobility Transformation Facility is a fake city built around a four-lane highway, designed to simulate dangerous traffic events and road conditions.

"The type of testing we're talking about doing-it's not possible to do today in the university infrastructure," said Ryan Eustice, a U-M associate naval architecture and marine engineering professor.

A public/private partnership funded in part by the College of Engineering, the project also has the support of industry heavyweights like Bosch, Econolite, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, and Xerox, as well as federal state, and local government officials.

Eventually, the Mobility Transformation Center (MTC) will launch three complementary on-road vehicle deployments of up to 20,000 cars across southeastern Michigan-the test bed for a working system in Ann Arbor by 2021.

"The College of Engineering brings expertise in robotics and how to test sophisticated machines," said Peter Sweatman, director of the MTC and the U-M Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI).

With that in mind, two unnamed Michigan Engineering robotics researchers will be among the simulated city's first users, running tests on an automated Ford Fusion hybrid.

The facility will be put to the test as "drivers" navigate through merge lanes, stoplights, intersections, roundabouts, road signs, a railroad crossing, construction barrels, and, eventually, a mechanical pedestrian.

"We will actually be writing code for the test facility," Edwin Olson, assistant professor of computer science and engineering, said in a statement. "We'll be able to trigger tricky traffic signal timings, or a pedestrian stepping into the intersection at just the wrong time, for example."

The university joins the likes of Google, Volvo, and Freescale on the self-driving car path, hoping to reduce crashes, ease traffic, and curb pollution and energy use through the new technology.

"The potential of this technology is truly transformative, opening up broad opportunities in the emerging marketplace," Sweatman said.

But it won't come cheap. According to the university, members of the center's Leadership Circle will each commit $1 million over three years in support of the MTC's programs.

"Today reminds me of when I was a young boy and used to watch The Jetsons," M-U Dean of Engineering David Munson said. "We're not doing flying cars here, but I think we're doing something more important ... and almost as impressive."

Still in the very early phases, autonomous vehicles are on their way to mainstream popularity. Last month, the California Department of Motor Vehicles approved new rules that govern self-driving car testing in the state.

Early adopter Google also recently showed off a prototype of its own autonomous vehicle-a small, Volkswagen Bug-esque car without a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, or brake pedal.

For more, see Taking Volvo's Self-Driving Car for a Spin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U of Michigan Building Fake City to Test Self-Driving Cars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The University of Michigan plans to open the first campus-based autonomous vehicle test facility this fall. A 32-acre playground for researchers testing self-driving cars, the Mobility Transformation Facility is a fake city built around a four-lane highway, designed to simulate dangerous traffic events and road conditions.

# data[].attributes.body
Journal

# data[].attributes.body
Hydrogen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hyundai today debuted its first hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle in the United States. The carmaker handed the keys over to California resident Timothy Bush, who will pay $499 per month to drive the green vehicle.

As an incentive to try out this burgeoning car tech, Bush and any other customers who lease a Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell CUV will get free hydrogen refueling, much like Tesla provides free charging for its Model S electric cars.

Hyundai said the Tucson Fuel Cell "represents the next generation of electric vehicles" in that it does not plug in and charge up like a traditional EV. Instead, the hydrogen helps generate electricity, which powers the vehicle. There are zero greenhouse-gas emissions, as the car emits only water vapor, Hyundai said.

Hyundai said that the car has a driving range of about 265 miles, which apparently takes less than 10 minutes to refuel. When driving in the city, the car saves energy with a start/stop mode, which turns off the fuel-cell stack and uses battery power instead. When braking, the battery also charges the motor.

But don't expect to be able to drive this car across the country just yet. Hyundai is initially offering the Tucson Fuel Cell in the Los Angeles/Orange County region, due to the location of public hydrogen refueling stations, specifically those along Interstate 405 near Los Angeles and Orange counties.

But Hyundai was quick to point out that California has approved plans to develop up to 100 hydrogen refueling stations in the state over the next several years. The California Energy Commission also proposed $44.5 million for the development of 28 new hydrogen stations and a mobile refueler.

Early adopters, meanwhile, will pay $499 per month for 36 months and $2,999 down to lease the Tucson Fuel Cell CUV.

Tesla has significantly expanded its own Supercharger network of electric vehicle charging stations. To show off those gains, two teams of Tesla employees driving Model S vehicles successfully completed the company's first Los Angeles to New York road trip in February, charging only at Supercharger stations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hyundai's Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Car Arrives in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hyundai today debuted its first hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle in the United States. The carmaker handed the keys over to California resident Timothy Bush, who will pay $499 per month to drive the green vehicle.

# data[].attributes.body
Alternatives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Petrol vs Electric | Mercedes SLS AMG Battle | Top Gear | Series 20 | BBC

# data[].attributes.body
Related to article 17

# data[].attributes.body
Promising signs of electric cars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mira EV has created a world record with completing 1000 km run on a single battery charge non-stop, powered by Sanyo's lithium-ion battery systems. This experiment took place on the world's longest race course in Japan, in Shimotsuma. Organized by Japan Electric Vehicle Club, this long marathon driving was accomplished by a relay team of 17 auto-racers from a training school in Ibraki, Japan.

Restrictions triumphed:

Electric vehicles have long been handicapped for long-distance travel by the limited battery power. But now Sanyo's lithium-ion battery technology has made it possible for Mira EV to travel 1003.184 km without a recharge. Traveling for 27.5 hours, at 40 km/h average speed, from May 22 to May 23, 2010, the trail run by Mira EV was powered by putting together 8320 cylindrical lithium-ion 18650-type batteries.

Beating own record:

Fame is nothing new to Mira EV. It had already once run for 555.6 km nonstop without recharging last November. This was acclaimed as world record in April. But now in May, beating its own record, almost doubling it, Mira EV has created a feat worthy enough to be recorded in Guinness World Record now, by traveling 1000 km on a single charge.

Sanyo strong on its mission:

Sanyo will continue with its work on lithium-ion battery. With Mira EV's triumph, the future of electrical cars looks very bright. And Sanyo is still going strong on its mission of making a 'low-carbon society' possible and help in making zero-emission cars a reality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mira EV has created a world record with completing 1000 km run on a single battery charge non-stop, powered by Sanyo's lithium-ion battery systems. This experiment took place on the world's longest race course in Japan, in Shimotsuma.

# data[].attributes.body
Financial (+) Tesla

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introducing 'Tesla Financing(TM)'

Tesla Motors has never been a company that did things like everybody else, from its electric cars to its stores to its charging stations. Today, they're innovating on financing:

How does it work?

US Bank and Wells Fargo have agreed to provide 10% down financing for purchase of a Model S (on approved credit).

The 10% down payment is covered or more than covered by US Federal and state tax credits ranging from $7,500 to $15,000. New Jersey, Washington and DC also have no sales tax for electric vehicles. These advantages are not available when leasing.

When considering the savings from using electricity instead of gasoline, depreciation benefits and other factors, the true net out of pocket cost to own a mid-range Model S drops to less than $500 per month.

After 36 months, you have the right, but not the obligation to sell your Model S to Tesla for the same residual value percentage as the iconic Mercedes S Class, one of the finest premium sedans in the world, made by Daimler (also a Tesla partner and investor).

Not only is Tesla guaranteeing that resale value, but Tesla CEO Elon Musk is personally standing behind that guarantee to give customers absolute peace of mind about the value of the asset they are purchasing.

Bottom line

So basically, you get the benefits of buying (you can keep the car as long as you want), but like with leasing, you have the option of returning the car after 36 months for the equivalent of not less than the percentage of residual value of a Mercedes S Class (which should reassure those who don't think Teslas will age well and retain value). As Tesla mentioned, if you lease you don't get access to the financial incentives provided by various government levels for buying plug-in vehicles, something that this hybrid financing option does get access to. This type of financing also allows you to sell the car at any point, unlike with a lease. They've tried hard to make it the best of both worlds.

This new type of financing will only be available in the U.S. at first, though Mr. Musk mentioned that they're working on ways of making something similar available in Canada, Asia, and Europe. Canada should be next, "within months", with Scotia Bank as partner, said Musk.

Update: Tesla has released this video of Musk explaining the broad strokes of the new financing plan:

The company has a new calculator page where potential buyers can see what their "true cost of ownership" would be under all kinds of scenarios. You change all kinds of variables, such as state-specific tax credits, how many miles you drive, what your gasoline and electricity costs would be, and you even have the option of giving a monetary value to the time you would save by having access to the HOV lane and not having to stop at gas station.

My Impression

I feel like this financial innovation will turn out to be extremely important for Tesla, even if a lot of people won't realize it at first. It's a bit technical (it's basically an ordinary car loan with an embedded put option guaranteed by Tesla and Elon Musk personally), so it won't get people excited like a new electric car design or a fancy charging station, but it still matters. SolarCity has shown in the solar power area that how financing is structured can make a lot of difference, and while there's a big difference between electric cars and solar systems, the impact on the adoption rate of the technology could potentially be similar.

Mercedes has taken decades to build a reputation as a brand that holds value relatively well in the used car market, and in one day, Tesla has latched on to that and told everybody "we hold our value just as much". Brilliant move for a small startup, in my opinion.

And no doubt if this new financing method is successful, other car-makers will copy it -- it won't be the first time that others follow where Tesla leads. This has always helped the company punch above its weight in impact on the industry.

Don't tease, Elon

Elon Musk also teased the journalists on the conference call by saying that the company would make announcements about more products and services, and new features that are right under everybody's nose in the Model S, but not today. These will be announced in coming weeks, so stay tuned.

Via Tesla Motors

See also: Tesla News: Model S exceeds sales target, Q1 will be profitable, 40kWh model killed, bonus supercharging

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tesla announces new way to finance its electric cars, a hybrid between leasing and owning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Introducing 'Tesla Financing(TM)' Tesla Motors has never been a company that did things like everybody else, from its electric cars to its stores to its charging stations. Today, they're innovating on financing: US Bank and Wells Fargo have agreed to provide 10% down financing for purchase of a Model S (on approved credit).

# data[].attributes.body
Financial (+)

# data[].attributes.body
US Department for Energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alternative Fuels Data Center: Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than a dozen alternative fuels are in production or under development for use in alternative fuel vehicles and advanced technology vehicles. Government and private-sector vehicle fleets are the primary users for most of these fuels and vehicles, but individual consumers are increasingly interested in them.

# data[].attributes.body
2:44PM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
9.40am: A study by engineers based at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology has questioned some common assumptions about the environmental credentials of electric cars.

Published this week in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, the " comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles" begins by stating that "it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting". By this, the authors mean that by solving one problem, do electric cars create another? And, if so, does this environmental harm then outweigh any advantages?

The study highlights in particular the "toxicity" of the electric car's manufacturing process compared to conventional petrol/diesel cars. It concludes that the "global warming potential" of the process used to make electric cars is twice that of conventional cars.

The study also says - as has been noted many times before - that electric cars do not make sense if the electricity they consume is produced predominately by coal-fired power stations. "It is counterproductive to promote [electric vehicles] EVs in regions where electricity is produced from oil, coal, and lignite combustion," it concludes.

So, should this new study make us reassess the environmental credentials of electric cars? Or does the analysis and data help us, as the authors insist, improve the environmental performance of electric cars? As they say:

Although EVs are an important technological breakthrough with substantial potential environmental benefits, these cannot be harnessed everywhere and in every condition.

Please leave your thoughts below. If you are quoting figures or other studies, please provide a link through to the original source. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too. And later on today, I will return with my own verdict.

10.09am: There has already been some reaction via Twitter asking if the study is "well-to-wheel", namely, does it also include the emissions caused during the extraction/production of petrol/diesel?

I have just received an email from Guillaume Majeau-Bettez, one of the authors, answering this precise point:

Yes, our study covers the whole production chain of the cars and of the fuels, the use phase, and the end of life.

P.S. I have asked the authors of the paper to monitor this debate and respond to any other queries from readers.

10.32am: It's probably worth highlighting, just in case you missed the link above, that the paper in question can be read in full here. Here's the key conclusion:

The production phase of EVs proved substantially more environmentally intensive. Nonetheless, substantial overall improvements in regard to GWP [global warming potential], TAP [terrestrial acidification potential], and other impacts may be achieved by EVs powered with appropriate energy sources relative to comparable ICEVs [internal combustion engine vehicles]. However, it is counterproductive to promote EVs in regions where electricity is produced from oil, coal, and lignite combustion. The electrification of transportation should be accompanied by a sharpened policy focus with regard to life cycle management, and thus counter potential setbacks in terms of water pollution and toxicity. EVs are poised to link the personal transportation sector together with the electricity, the electronic, and the metal industry sectors in an unprecedented way. Therefore the developments of these sectors must be jointly and consistently addressed in order for EVs to contribute positively to pollution mitigation efforts.

10.38am: In the comment below, @MartynW asked:

Does this study take account of cars being one of the most recycled products we use?

Guillaume Majeau-Bettez, one of the paper's authors, has just emailed me this in response:

The crucial importance of recycling is one of the conclusions of our analysis. There are different ways to account for recycling in Life Cycle Assessment. We have chosen to analyse a "first wave" of electric vehicles, made from average metal mixes (a fraction virgin and a fraction from recycling). Hopefully, subsequent "waves" of electric cars would be made with a higher fraction of recycled metal (ecars made from ecars, cradle-to-cradle...), but the industry is not there yet.

11.24am: Many thanks for the great response from readers so far. Here are a few interesting observations that I thought worth highlighting here "above the line"...

Dr Simon Evans:

While we can expect petrol/diesel cars to become more efficient I would have though the same will be true of electric car manufacture, plus grid mix carbon intensity is going to fall through the floor if carbon targets are met - at least inthe UK. This will make electric cars an even better proposition in CO2 terms

The place that most of these studies fall down is that they don't properly account for the toxic air pollution benefits of EVs and in particular it's spatial dependence. The effects of pollution on health are much higher pro rata in highly polluted city centres (like London) than in less polluted, smaller cities or rural areas.

While EVs currently rely on polluting power stations, in the future, these can become friendlier, as alternative sources are developed. I see EVs as not being perfect, but they have a lot more potential than IC cars that will always be polluting, no matter how efficient they are.

The study does not go beyond looking at 'average use' of vehicles in calculating it's numbers. No comparative numbers for predominantly low speed, urban, stop-start use. All of these factors will significantly favour electric.

11.40am: Here's another email from Guillaume Majeau-Bettez, one of the paper's authors who is following the reader reaction below:

Your readers are sharp critiques!

The recycling question is central (see my previous email).

@ikd: The absence of urban air emissions is certainly a strong argument in favour of electric cars. For human toxicity, our study partly addresses the difference between emissions to densely populated and less populated areas, though this could certainly be improved. However, we cannot think only of the toxicity on humans; we also address toxic impacts on aquatic life and ecosystems.

@Seb: This is one of our core finding: because the production of an electric car causes roughly twice the climate impact of producing a comparable conventional car, it must run on rather clean electricity to "make up" for the initial climate impact.
Further on @Seb: All use phase energy requirements were based on industry performance tests with the New European Driving Cycle, following the UNECE 101 regulation (UNECE 2005). These tests combine four elementary urban
driving cycles and one extra-urban driving cycle, with regenerative charging and energy losses during overnight charging included for EVs.

@Guess11: Following industry standard, we based our assessment of the use-phase on the "New European Driving Cycle", which includes a typical share of stop-start.

As many readers point out, the electric car industry is young and will likely improve in the future. We studied the present generation of electric car, we refrained from making predictions.

good dialogue.

11.52am: I've just received this reaction from a spokeswoman at the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders:

Electric vehicles represent one option within a range of technologies that help motorists to lower their emissions. The automotive industry manufactures - or is developing - a broad array of low and ultra-low carbon vehicles, from highly efficient petrol and diesel models, through gas, biofuel and hydrogen, to hybrid, plug-in hybrid, pure-electric and fuel cell vehicles. Every year, the latest drivetrain technologies see emissions reduced, with today's new cars emitting on average 20% less than their 10 year old counterparts. Significant investment is ongoing, with worldwide R&D powering the continuous improvement of existing technologies and the introduction of other low carbon innovations.
In terms of the lifecycle emissions of electric vehicles, the energy industry in Europe is constrained by legally binding limits on the total amount of CO2 emitted each year, up to 2020 (EU Emissions Trading Scheme 2009/29/EC). This limit reduces year-on-year to achieve an overall reduction in CO2 emissions. This means, in practice, that if overall energy demand increases as a result of electric vehicles (or for any other reason) then the increase in demand must be met with electricity from renewable or zero carbon generation sources.
In addition, measures such as the EU's Renewable Energy Directive, which requires 20% of renewable energy by 2020, are positive strategies to achieve CO2 reductions while the European Emissions Trading Scheme requires electricity suppliers to reduce their overall CO2 emissions.

12.11pm: Robert Wilson, from the University of Strathclyde's department of mathematics, raises an important point below the line:

Simply decarbonizing electricity assuming no increases to demand appears to be a massive challenge. Our choice on transportation appears to be between increased fuel efficiency, a switch to "cleaner" fossil fuels and a push for increased public transportation, or aiming for something like 100% electric cars. The first approach is guaranteed some level of success. The second, however will fail completely if the electricity grid is not fully decarbonized. What we really need to do here is reframe this question, and instead ask not whether electric cars are bad for the environment, but how many of them are bad for the environment.

12.15pm: Touching on the same themes as this week's paper, Time magazine ran this feature last February on why the use of electric cars in China - where "about 85% of the country's electricity is powered by fossil fuels, of which 95% is coal" - is causing an environmental headache:

Kilometer per kilometer, electric cars in China beat out conventional vehicles as among the worst environmental polluters. On average, the fine particulate emissions per passenger-km are 3.6 times greater for electric cars than for gasoline cars. That's better than for diesel cars but on par with diesel buses, which can spread their environmental impact across the number of passengers they carry. "If we compare gasoline car emissions to electric car emissions, the electric cars look very, very bad," says Christopher Cherry, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at University of Tennessee. "So the point is that you have to consider the emissions exposure when the exposure source is far apart - the electrical power plant as opposed to the tailpipe of a car."

12.30pm: As background reading, I have examined the issue of whether " electric cars really produce fewer emissions" before. I have also investigated the issue raised by uhf101 regarding "range anxiety".

12.36pm: Here's some reaction via Twitter...

@ leohickman you may find this information on electric vehicle battery recycling useful autom.tv/T4XCRz

- Tom Callow (@au_tom_otive) October 5, 2012

Re @ leohickman's eco-audit's Q, what % increase in UK electricity demand would result from 100% electric cars? From memory it's 50% in US.

- Robert Wilson (@PlanktonMath) October 5, 2012

@ planktonmath @ leohickman King, 2007: "total conversion of UK car fleet to electricity = 16% of current demand" (out of date?)

- David Powell (@powellds) October 5, 2012

@ powellds @ leohickman If overnight when demand is low, less new capacity is needed. Some argue (optimistically) you need no new capacity.

- Robert Wilson (@PlanktonMath) October 5, 2012

@ powellds @ leohickman EU figures about 15% increase in demand (see p.30). goo.gl/w5TX2

- Robert Wilson (@PlanktonMath) October 5, 2012

@ powellds @ leohickman IEA put the global figure at 20%. Referenced in a book I have open, but can't find it online.

- Robert Wilson (@PlanktonMath) October 5, 2012

12.48pm: It's a few years old now (2008), but here's what the UK government has to say ( pdf) on the issue of the "lifetime vehicle carbon use" of EVs compared to vehicles with internal combustion engine:

EVs have the potential to offer significant carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions reductions compared to conventional petrol/diesel fuelled internal combustion engines. This applies over a full life cycle, taking account of emissions from power generation and emissions relating to production and disposal. Based on the current UK grid mix there are already significant benefits of the order of approximately 40% reduction; these benefits have the potential to become much greater with further decarbonisation of the UK power mix.

1.00pm: I've just received this response from Robert Llewellyn, probably best known as Kryten in Red Drawf but also something of an electric car obsessive, as evidenced by his dedicated blog:

I'm trying not to be dismissive of yet 'another report' which 'proves electric cars are more polluting than diesel' because it raises a very important points. We need to know the facts about electric cars, their true total impact. Here I will point out something, we still don't know the true impact of the internal combustion cars and the fuel they use. This information is obfuscated by historical habit, for 100 years no one wanted to know. For example, how much electricity from coal burning power plants goes into refining oil? Try and find out how much per gallon? I've asked when filming at a massive oil refinery that had it's own set of pylons coming from a nearby coal burner. No one wants to tell you. (estimates range from between 4 -7 kWh per gallon) We know we need to change the way we generate electricity, with or without electric vehicles this is vitally important. We know what comes out of the tailpipe of an ICE car, toxic and carcinogenic gasses which cause untold levels of harm to human beings. We do know that 100 miles in an electric car uses around 24kWh, in an ICE car around 110 kWh. So from a global energy perspective that's a massive reduction in energy needs.
We do know that most EV drivers charge the car at night when the amount of coal burnt to produce electricity is at it's lowest, we know that coal makes up under 30% of the UK grid supply during peak times. We know that most people who drive EV's also install solar panels, I have. In one year, my Nissan Leaf used 5,340 kWh and my solar panels produced 3,555 kWh. We know that an electric car can run on electricity from any source, a fossil burner can only burn fossils.
So what about the battery toxicity? Are we just going to throw away the battery after the car has done 150,000 miles? No, of course not. Nissan are about to open a massive battery re-cycling plant at their Sunderland works. What about the massive piles of worn parts the traditional motor industry produces, clutches, waste lubricating oil, the platinum in catalytic converters, filters, pumps, the list goes on and on. Are they thrown away? of course not, they are recycled. What about the materials that go into making traditional cars, sourced and shipped from all over the world. The true well to wheel argument is a minefield, and this report has dived in feet first. Good luck to them.

1.10pm: Here's another email from Guillaume Majeau-Bettez, one of the paper's authors, this time on the question that I put to him about whether they had also looked at regional variations when it came to the carbon intensity of electricity production. For example, in terms of reducing emissions, is the US grid better or worse than Europe's for charging electric cars?

This is outside the original scope of our study. We did not address electric vehicles on a region-per-region basis, but rather on a per-electricity-source basis. This can get quite complex; the electricity mix in any given point can differ from the average (national, regional) mix, and will also fluctuate with time (time of day, season, etc.) Speaking in general terms, however, the average US grid is more fossil fuel and global warming intensive than the European grid.

Referring to the latest "Life Cycle Inventories of Electricity Mixes and Grid", the US mix causes roughly 800 gCO2-equivalent per kWh of low voltage electricity at grid, compared to roughly 500 for the European mix. (see http://www.esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/publicLCI/itten-2012-electricity-mix.pdf - p. 207)

2.12pm: Dr Marcello Contestabile, a research fellow at the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology at Imperial College London who specialises in battery technologies "in the context of road transport", has emailed me his thoughts:

In the last few years there has been a lot of hype around electric vehicles and as a result their environmental credentials have often been somewhat overstated. However, experts are well aware of the fact that well-to-wheel carbon emissions of EVs are strongly dependent on the carbon intensity of the electricity used, and that in extreme cases these could even be higher than those of conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. Lifecycle environmental impacts of electric vehicles are comparatively less well understood and hence studies such as Hawkins et al are needed.
In a recent consultancy piece I have conducted with other colleagues at Imperial College ( http://www.lcaworks.com/EV%20Lit%20Rev%20FINAL.pdf), we arrive at results that are largely in agreement with Hawkins et al. In particular, we have focused on greenhouse gas emissions and we have reviewed previous studies showing that manufacturing of electric vehicles, and particularly batteries, is likely to be more energy intensive than that of conventional internal combustion engines. However, this can be more than offset over the lifetime of the vehicle if the latter is powered by low carbon electricity and the battery lifetime is comparable to that of an internal combustion engine.
In our piece we also argue that the fact that battery technology is still evolving could help mitigating the problem. In fact, for electric vehicles to gain a significant share of the market the cost and weight of batteries need to reduce significantly and their durability increase. Reducing costs involves using cheaper materials, and hence those based on less energy intensive materials would be favoured; reducing weight means using lighter but also less material per unit energy stored, which again could reduce the overall environmental impact of battery manufacturing.
In conclusion, it is plausible that the currently higher environmental impact of manufacturing electric vehicles will naturally reduce somewhat if these are adopted on a large scale; at the same time, decarbonising power generation is imperative and it is in this context that electric vehicles should be considered. However, both my analysis and Hawkins et al also suggest that more research on lifecycle impacts of electric vehicles (and indeed any other vehicle technology) is necessary and that road transport policies need to better account for these impacts in order to provide a level playing field where more environmentally benign technologies are adequately rewarded.

2.24pm: Andy Heiron, Renault UK's head of electric vehicle programme, has sent me his thoughts:

Most of the environmental impact of a car comes in use and in this respect EV's already offer a significant 'well to wheel' advantage, even with the relatively 'dirty' grid mix in the UK. Taking into account the proposed Committee on Climate Change target of 300g/KWh, this would equate to w2w for ZOE (210km range, NEDC) of 31.4g/km, and I cannot see ICE technology getting close to that level by 2020.
Without access to, or the time to study, this report, it's difficult to add much on the production impacts, but the statement the production of EV's has twice the global warming impact seems high, and perhaps, as one of the authors admitted, reflects the current reality of (low volume) production. Again, I can only comment on the Renault situation where EV's are built in the same factories alongside ICE products and so suggest that a difference of this magnitude seems unlikely.

2.44pm: Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK's chief scientist and policy director, has responded:

Whilst unable to go over the report with a fine toothcomb, the broad conclusions seem right in that:

1. Ricardo research for LowCVP showed that the climate costs of production of electric vehicles are significant, in particular, in relation to the battery. Policy that ignores this could create perverse incentives.

2. Electricity is a carrier of energy, not the primary energy itself. Once fabricated, running electric vehicles off a power system run by lignite will generate increased emissions rather than savings, and generally will off coal too.

3. Element Energy have calculated that in 2030, even with EVs representing three-quarters of the total car stock, the additional demands are less than 10% of forecast electricity demand at that time for all end uses.

4. It remains an environmental imperative to conserve scarce resources like the minerals and rare earths necessary for battery fabrication. Saving CO2 does not justify laxity on mining standards or waste management.

5. The importance of electric vehicles - and hydrogen-fuelled ones - is that they provide a way of moving away from a hydrocarbon based transport system. Electric vehicle development and mass-production cannot just be switched on and off overnight. So EVs can be supported if there is a broad consensus that decarbonisation of the power system will take place, and a strong implementation plan in a country.

6. However, the longer term options of technology change should not obscure the fact that in the short term most of the emissions savings in transport will come from better efficiency of petrol and diesel vehicles. Emissions standards for cars and vans, as are being discussed in Europe and member states this autumn, are the most important measure for reducing emissions over the next decade. Changes in vehicle technology and production that these standards require will generally be helpful in making EVs a more attractive commercial proposition.

4.37pm:

My verdict

The authors of this new paper are evidently not saying that electric cars are "bad" for the environment in all circumstances, but they are confirming what many already knew: that as electric cars become more popular - which is being encouraged by policymakers across many countries - we mustn't lose sight of the fact that the carbon intensity of the electricity used to power them is key. Another crucially important factor to monitor (and, hopefully, ameliorate) is just how energy- and resource-intensive the production of these vehicles can be.

The problem for electric cars is that they will only increase their environmental credentials (compared to "conventional" cars) once more and more of them are made and used, which, in itself, will drive faster and deeper innovation in battery technology, production efficiencies and end-of-life recyclability. It's somewhat unfair to compare them to conventional cars at present because they are an immature, fledgling technology, but the opportunity for increased efficiency throughout their lifecycle seems significant as/if they become more popular.

But a bigger problem, perhaps, is that their environmental "success" hangs largely on factors beyond their manufacturers' control. As has been shown in China, electric cars powered by electricity generated through the burning of coal and oil make very little environmental sense. They need to run off a low-carbon, "smart" grid where renewables and nuclear do much of the heavy lifting. So policy-makers have a twin challenge if they want to see more people driving electric cars: they need to ensure a low-carbon, smart grid is delivered and they need to assist manufacturers in bringing down the cost of these vehicles. Doing that in a synchronised and timely manner is going to be hard, but a prize worth reaching for.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are electric cars bad for the environment? | Leo Hickman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
9.40am: A study by engineers based at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology has questioned some common assumptions about the environmental credentials of electric cars. Published this week in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, the " comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles" begins by stating that "it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting".

# data[].attributes.body
*

Economic (-)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rebecca Lindland, a senior auto analyst for the research firm Global Insight, is a fan of both electric cars and GM's plug-in Volt. "This is not a George Jetson future," says Lindland. "This is ours." But that future is still a ways off. Lindland said that when she met with GM executives not long ago to talk about the Volt, she reminded them of one vexing question: The plug-in makers' assumption is that drivers will recharge their cars in the garage at home, where it shouldn't be too hard to find an electrical outlet. "But I live in an apartment and park my car on the street," says Boston area resident Lindland. "So where am I going to plug in my car?"

That's just one of countless questions that needs an answer before plug-in cars can truly take their place on American roads. Certainly, electric cars have at least one built-in advantage: The electrical grid already exists. Other auto alternatives, like hydrogen fuel cells, would require the development of an expensive new infrastructure to deliver the gas to fueling stations around the country. But to make plug-ins a truly viable alternative — one that could kill petroleum — we will need to make changes to the way we supply and use electricity, both small and large. "Electricity is everywhere and it is extremely low cost," says Mark Duvall, program manager for electric transport at the Electric Power Research Institute. "But we have to take into account the ways that drivers will want to use electricity."

The first changes would have to be in pricing and delivery. Most of the U.S. utility system is extraordinarily dumb — using 19th-century technology to run 21st-century applications. In real-time, utilities rarely know how much electricity any given customer is using, or when. Even though electric cars use relatively little power — the average car recharging draws about as much juice as a widescreen TV — they could still potentially overwhelm the electrical system. If plug-ins suddenly became popular, before the grid had a chance to get smarter, it could lead to a real power predicament. "You can imagine what would happen if five drivers on the block got home at 5 p.m. and all decided to recharge their cars at the same time," says Charles Griffith, auto project director at the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor, Mich.

One way to deal with the additional demand created by electric cars would simply be to build more power plants. That would be expensive, however, and, if the additional plants burned coal or natural gas, bad for climate change. A better solution: tap into the enormous extra capacity of the grid during off-peak times, like between midnight and dawn. According to a study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, off-peak capacity could support the conversion of 73% of the current auto fleet — enough to cut demand for oil in half — without the addition of a single extra plant, provided the cars all charge late at night. "We have a great amount of untapped resources," says Luke Tonachel, vehicle analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We can minimize impact on the grid."

To do that, however, we need to persuade plug-in owners to recharge at the right time — by pricing electricity cheaply late at night, when demand is low. If charging a plug-in battery costs 2 cents-per-mile after midnight, and many times that during the day, drivers will likely wait before plugging in. (If that pricing model sounds familiar, it should be — it's how long distance calling works.) But to make that system work, utilities will need to install smart meters in customers' homes capable of monitoring when cars are charging, and then to price the juice accordingly; smart meters are already being tested out by utilities in California and Texas. These changes would also help utilities even out the peaks and valleys that come with providing power. "The hope is that we'll be able to actively regulate our grid to improve efficiency," says Brian Wynne, president of the D.C.-based Electric Drive Transportation Association. "There is tremendous potential."

( See photos of the dozen most important cars of all time here.)
( Check out the 50 worst cars of all time here.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rebecca Lindland, a senior auto analyst for the research firm Global Insight, is a fan of both electric cars and GM's plug-in Volt. "This is not a George Jetson future," says Lindland. "This is ours." But that future is still a ways off.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Getty Images News

The makers of electric cars have a serious challenge before them. Right now electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf or the Tesla Roadster offer significantly inferior range at much higher prices than conventional cars. Of course, the cost to recharge an electric car is considerably less than the price of gassing up a conventional vehicle-especially with gas prices stubbornly north of $3 a gallon-but the high sticker price for electric cuts deeply into those savings. Car makers like General Motors-which is selling the extended-range electric Volt -need to convince you to buy a vehicle that costs more and is limited in its functionality compared to a conventional, albeit with major green benefits.

But there's another challenge before electric car makers as well: convincing drivers that an unfamiliar technology is safe and reliable. And that may now prove harder than many carmakers expected. Last week the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched an investigation into GM's Chevrolet Volt after two crash tests of the car caused its lithium-ion battery to spark or catch fire. Those tests came after an incident in the spring in which a Volt battery that had been damaged in a crash test caught fire three weeks later, igniting the Volt and several other nearby cars.

From the NHTSA statement:

More from TIME: How China Can Take the Wheel on Electric Cars

The agency is concerned that damage to the Volt's batteries as part of three tests that are explicitly designed to replicate real-world crash scenarios have resulted in fire. NHTSA is therefore opening a safety defect investigation of Chevy Volts, which could experience a battery-related fire following a crash. Chevy Volt owners whose vehicles have not been in a serious crash do not have reason for concern.

While it is too soon to tell whether the investigation will lead to a recall of any vehicles or parts, if NHTSA identifies an unreasonable risk to safety, the agency will take immediate action to notify consumers and ensure that GM communicates with current vehicle owners.

GM was quick to get ahead of the news, conducting a press call with reporters Monday morning and sending letters to all Volt owners and dealers explaining the investigation. The company offered any Volt owners who were worried about the safety of their vehicles loaner cars or trucks for the duration of the investigation. It's also important to note that GM says that there haven't been any reports among the 5,000 or so Volts that have actually been sold of battery problems or fires after accidents like the ones seen in the NHTSA tests. And the batteries in those test Volts were not drained after the crashes, which may have contributed to the conflagaration later.

More form TIME: Is America Ready to Drive Electric?

Regardless, GM was standing behind the Volt, the vehicle that has come to symbolize its turnaround from bankruptcy. "My daughter and sons ride in this car," said Mark Reuss, president of GM North America. "I believe this is safer than any internal combustion car."

In fact, it might even be safer-crashes in conventional cars results in thousands of vehicle fires every year. After all, it's not called the internal combustion engine for nothing. But the gasoline-powered vehicle has about a 100-year head start on the electric car-at least in its most recent and widespread iteration-and if there's one thing I've seen again and again on energy policy, it's that new technologies tend to face automatic skepticism from the public.

We've internalized the risks of conventional cars, such that we hardly stop to think about the fact that well over 30,000 Americans die in traffic accidents every year. But we haven't internalized the risks of electric cars, in part because few of us have ever driven one and in part because those risks haven't been fully established yet. So far there's little to indicate that electric cars are unusually risky-NHTSA noted that they had found no problems with electrics beyond the Volt. And it may simply be a matter of ensuring that drivers and technicians know to drain an electric car's battery after a crash to avoid the risk of a fire, just as you would drain the gas tank in a conventional vehicle. But that's one more thing car manufacturers will need to teach their customers-and one more challenge to the broad acceptance of electric cars.

More from TIME: GM Goes Green, Gets Green

Bryan Walsh is a senior writer at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @bryanrwalsh. You can also continue the discussion on TIME'sFacebook page and on Twitter at

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The makers of electric cars have a serious challenge before them. Right now electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf or the Tesla Roadster offer significantly inferior range at much higher prices than conventional cars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scott Olson / Getty Images

Electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf and Honda Fit EV used to languish on dealership lots for months. A pricing war with aggressive incentives and cheap lease deals has changed all that.

Last year, Nissan sold about half the number of Leafs it had anticipated, marking two years in a row of disappointing sales for the electric car pioneer. One of the factors holding the Leaf back from appealing to the masses has been the upfront price premium drivers have had to pay for the cars, when compared with similar vehicles that run on plain old gas.

But in early 2013, Nissan tried to cut the knees out from this part of the anti-EV argument. The automaker dropped base prices on the Leaf by $6,400 for the new model, making the idea of buying an electric car for under $19,000 a reality, when state and federal incentives are factored in. And once lease deals, tax credits, and gas savings are considered in the equation, word has spread this spring that it's basically possible to drive an EV for next to nothing.

Nissan's EV competitors have followed with compelling deals of their own, including $199-per-month lease specials for the Chevy Spark EV and Fiat 500e. Mitsubishi and Toyota have also dropped prices dramatically for EV models. As CNET pointed out, the Honda Fit EV might be the best offer of all: a three-year lease for $259 per month, with no money down, unlimited miles, a 240-EV home charging station, and auto insurance included. Honda's previous lease deal was $389 per month, a price point that failed to get consumers excited.

( MORE: Tesla Beat the Odds - And the Haters - But Now Comes the Hard Part)

But within days of Honda dropping the special lease price by $130 in early June, dealerships in California were sold out and customers had to compete to get on the waiting list for more, per the Los Angeles Times:

"It's incredible, especially since we haven't had any foot traffic or interest in the car in six months," said Jeff Fletcher, sales manager at Honda of Santa Monica. "I'm not even sure we'll have enough cars for the people on the waiting list."

Last week, Honda issued an apology for not having Fit EVs available, and promised more were on the way. "We recognize that some customers have experienced frustration as they attempt to locate dealers with available Fit EVs," reads a statement from Steve Center, Honda's environmental business development vice president. "We sincerely apologize for this - though it should be only a temporary inconvenience. The good news is that more Fit EV's are on their way to dealer showrooms."

Low-price deals have also given the Nissan Leaf a boost this year, tripling sales of the vehicle in the first five months of 2013, compared to the same period last year. Meanwhile, sales of the Chevy Volt-the gas plug-in hybrid that doubled the Leaf in sales in 2012-have been fairly flat thus far in 2013. Unsurprisingly, last week Chevrolet entered into the electric car price wars with a $5,000 cash back incentive.

( MORE: What Would Make an All-Electric Vehicle Appeal to the Masses?)

Naturally, all of these deals will help automakers sell some cars. But are these aggressive incentives good for business? At this early stage of the EV marketplace, automakers appear be to focused on getting consumers to want these cars. Dropping prices in such dramatic fashion will certainly drive up interest. What's unclear, however, is the extent to which the automakers truly want to sell large quantities of these vehicles at cut-rate prices. Earlier this year, Chrysler CEO said that his company, which owns Fiat, will lose roughly $10,000 for each Fiat 500e sold, according to the Associated Press.

While Honda says that more Fit EVs are on the way, the automaker doesn't seem particularly interested in selling the vehicle by the tens of thousands-not yet anyway. For the time being, Honda is sticking with a plan to sell (or rather, lease, because they're not selling the vehicles outright) a maximum of just 1,100 Fit EVs in the U.S. As the LA Times put it, "there is little financial incentive to increase production" on the Fit EV because Honda loses money on each of the cars it builds.

The goal, it seems, is to drive up interest in EVs with price breaks and limited supply-and then hope that interest remains high even when automakers raise prices down the line. Hopefully, these vehicles will soon see improvements in driving range in the near future - most can be driven only for about 75 to 80 miles before they need a recharge - which would make them more practical and help boost interest further.

( MORE: Caveat Sharer: Legal Problems for Car Sharing and Airbnb)

While all of the lease deals and price slashing is obviously intended to woo potential new buyers, one Automotive News columnist writes that all of the recent wheeling and dealing may wind up inadvertently angering the early adopters who believed in the technology first and may now feel foolish for paying top dollar:

If I bought, say, a Nissan Leaf, it's bad enough that my EV's resale value is much lower than that of a hybrid. But if I paid full price for it in February, before it was discounted 18 percent, I'm feeling stupid. And I'm feeling that I have been played.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
All of a Sudden, There Aren't Enough Electric Cars to Keep Up with Demand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf and Honda Fit EV used to languish on dealership lots for months. A pricing war with aggressive incentives and cheap lease deals has changed all that. Last year, Nissan sold about half the number of Leafs it had anticipated, marking two years in a row of disappointing sales for the electric car pioneer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
David A. Kirsch, A Battery-Powered Car Run Down, Science, New Series, Vol. 314, No. 5798 (Oct. 20, 2006), p. 424

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hybrid Cars Threatened by Rare-Metal Shortages on JSTOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kathryn Senior, Hybrid Cars Threatened by Rare-Metal Shortages, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 7, No. 8 (Oct., 2009), p. 402

# data[].attributes.body
*

Environmental

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental Implications of Electric Cars on JSTOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lester B. Lave, Chris T. Hendrickson, Francis Clay McMichael, Environmental Implications of Electric Cars, Science, New Series, Vol. 268, No. 5213 (May 19, 1995), pp. 993-995

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The central mystery of the new movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is why General Motors created a dynamic battery-powered auto that drivers loved, only to crush it to smithereens.

The mystery, meantime, at the National Museum of American History is why a rare surviving example of that car -- a silvery-blue 1997 EV1 sedan -- would be removed from display yesterday just as interest in the innovative vehicle seems bound to grow.

In the movie, which premieres June 30 and goes into wide release July 21, writer-director Chris Paine celebrates the creation of the EV1, a nonpolluting car that generated so much passion among its fans that drivers staged a public funeral to say goodbye. Paine also excoriates GM for halting an experiment in gasoline independence under pressure from Big Oil in "one of the biggest blunders in the history of the automotive industry."

GM, which donated the EV1, happens to be one of the Smithsonian Institution's biggest contributors. A $10 million gift in 2001 paid half the cost of the history museum's new transportation exhibition hall, which was renamed to honor the benefactor. But museum and automaker say the EV1 was removed from view with no thoughts of public reaction to the movie or the display.

"There was no pressure from GM to remove the car from display," spokeswoman Michelle J. Werts said. The museum, which closes for renovation in September, simply needed the space for another vehicle, she said.

"It's not that I picked up the phone," said GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss, who defends the company in the film. "There is no conspiracy to do away with the EV1 at the Smithsonian. There is no Oliver Stone-esque conspiracy at GM to do away with the EV1."

Paine, who was on his way to a screening in Detroit last night, was not happy that the EV1 was in the museum in the first place.

"It's so sad that EV1 is being portrayed as history," he said by phone. "It's not an example of 'failed' technology. It's an example of what the 21st century can be in this country, if we had the willpower to do it. The Smithsonian should take the car out of the museum and put it back on the road."

The story of the EV1 is a classic 1990s tale of government regulation, corporate innovation, brilliant engineering and consumer lust for the Next New Thing.

The film chronicles how GM developed and launched a fleet of silent, aerodynamic electric vehicles to meet California's zero-emissions mandate. The shapely two-seaters with a GM logo enjoyed a brief ride in California and Arizona from 1996 until 2003, when they were taken off the market and destroyed. (GM says it was concerned about safety; others say the company wanted to head off the loss of proprietary secrets.)

Paine was one of the original drivers. The director started to make a comedy about Los Angeles drivers going nutty over cars, but the project turned serious after he encountered perfectly drivable EV1s being crushed and shredded at the Mesa Proving Grounds in Arizona.

In the film, images of President Bush and Vice President Cheney set a political tone, although California regulators set standards for zero emissions that forced automakers, including Honda and Toyota, to experiment with electric cars. Ralph Nader weighs in. So do Mel Gibson and Tom Hanks, who drove EV1s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The central mystery of the new movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is why General Motors created a dynamic battery-powered auto that drivers loved, only to crush it to smithereens.

# data[].attributes.body
*

Economic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sony Pictures Classics Presents :: Who Killed the Electric Car?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sony Pictures Classics Presents : Who Killed the Electric Car?