• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Electric Cars

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Not a bad documentary, though I'm almost certain it was slanted to favor the electric car. It did raise a lot of interesting questions though. Such as why would GM and other automakers destroy cars that people wanted to buy and drive? The film blamed corporate greed, both on the oil companies and the automakers, though they also targeted today's uninformed consumer.

Just out of curiousity, how many people here would buy a fully electric car? For sake of argument, lets say it has a maximum range of 100mi per charge, has a top speed of 85mph, can be charged from home, and requires roughly 8hr of charge time to get a full charge. With modern technology, and even older technology, a lot of these specs could be substantially increased. The film made note of a battery technology that could increase the range of the EV1 to 300mi per charge, however GM purchased majority control of the company and sat on it, later selling it to Texaco, who shelved it.

Another thing that film pointed out that really irked me was how GM marketed the EV1. You couldn't buy the car, only lease it. Their ad campaign was atrocious. Since when does a narrator that sounds like grandma talking over words etched in black sidewalk chalk on asphalt next to the shadow of a car sell a car? Sex appeal and demonstrations of power and abilities sell cars. Yet, not in any of GMs ads was there an attractive female, or male.

Furthermore, their leasing agreements seemed designed to fail. The film alleged that the leasing agreement was incredibly detailed, prying into the personal lives of the potential leasers. There also also a short commentary about the waiting list lease an EV1. One of the designers of the EV1 claimed their waiting list was huge and that they couldn't build cars fast enough to satisfy demand. GM reps claimed that the list had roughly 4000 names on it of people who 'raised their hands and said they'd buy and EV1'. However, the very next sentence from his mouth, and I quote 'After we sat down and went over the limitations of the car, that list shrank to about 50.' Why in the world would would you demean a product that you're trying to get me to buy? Thats like the salesman at Costco trying to talk you out of buying that 60in HDTV its requires a certain sized room for optimal viewing.

Finally, lets say the models run on a price range of 23k to 35k, depending on the packages and configurations.

Assuming these general specs and limitations though, would you purchase and electric car?

Here's my stance:

At the moment, I drive a 2000 Corolla Cheap Edition (CE). Its been a reliable, dependable vehicle, with the exception of the tires regularly going soft. That may be caused by my buying cheap tires though. My Corolla gets pretty solid gas mileage compared to other vehicles on the road and serves its purpose very well. For my purposes, I drive the car to and from work, which is roughly 6mi each way with a total trip of a little over 12mi. Typically, thats at least 5 days per week, but it can go to 7 days per week on occasion. I also drive to and from school. I haven't jogged to school yet, so I don't have an exact distance taken from my Garmin Forerunner, but I know its less than the distance to work. Lets say its roughly 4mi one way, 8mi total. The days per week vary, at least 1, as high as 4, depending on the semester. We'll go with 4 days per week for school and 5 days a week for work, which should present a fairly typical driving week. 5 days a week, 12 miles covered, comes to 60 miles driven. 4 days a week to school, 8 miles per trip, comes to 32 miles covered in a week. Thats only 92 miles covered in a week.

There's also the odd trips to the Walmart, Best Buy, movie theaters, etc. However, those are unpredictable and I don't have exact mileage for those distances. I think its safe to say that I drive between 115 miles and 150 miles per week.

Now, every time I fill up my gas tank, I write down the price of gas at the pump, my current odometer mileage, and the total price of the fill-up. I don't have the log in front of me at the moment, but given that I fill up roughly every 12 days or so, these per week estimates seems to be fairly realistic.

If our hypothetical electric car can only go 100 miles on a charge, obviously its not going to last to the end of the week. However, as with the EV1 and other EVs, we can plug this vehicle in at home to charge it. Given this, I shouldn't ever run out of the 'fuel' for the car so long as I remember to 1)Plug it in overnight and 2)Pay the electric bill.

As I was watching the film, they spoke at length about hydrogen fuel cells and their viability. Bare in mind that I fully support R&D into many different alternative fuels, but I'm starting to think that the fully electric vehicle is a more viable solution, at least for the couple of decades. What the film pointed out is that making hydrogen requires more electricity than simply using batteries. With the battery, your electricity comes straight from the city grid through your charger to your EV. With hydrogen, the power from the city grid converts water into hydrogen which your HFCV converts back to electricity to make the car go. Whether this is true, I don't know. Technology does improve all the time, but both batteries and fuel cell technology will continue to evolve and grow.

Now, I'll actually answer my original question. :p
Yes, I would be interested in an electric car, and likely would purchase one if they were available. My initial concerns would be the initial cost of the car and its maintenance costs. From what the film suggested, maintenance on the EV1 was a cake walk because it didn't require fuel filters, oil changes, etc. They also pointed out that the engine was very clean, clean meaning the mechanic's hands didn't come away black after working on it.

I hope to get a few more years out of my Corolla. With my current payment schedule, it should be paid off entirely in Aug 08. After that, I intend to take the car payment money and stash it in a savings account for a while. With my 300 USD per month car payment, thats roughly 3600 per year, no counting interest. Provided I can get a few more years of life from my Corolla, it shouldn't take more than a couple of years to purchase a shiny new hybrid eventually. Well, I know its kinda foolish to plan a purchase 4 years down the line of an object thats always changing due to technology advancement, I can stock pile the money for the purchase of a new vehicle in that time frame. Not a bad plan at all.

Cliffs:

- You shouldn't be lazy, read the post.
- Watched 'Who Killed the Electric Car'
- Ran a rough estimate of my driving habits
- Used simple specs of EVs to gauge interest at ATOT
- Gave my opinion


*Waits for the grammar nazis to critique my long post*
 

Savij

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 2001
4,233
0
71
and americans demand cars with better fuel economy...until they realize that it's their life long dream to get a land crusher 1000. It's not like gm is the only one that can make an electric car...and why did toyota avoid the plug in hybrid? because electric cars are shit for the average suburban life style that drives the entire range just going to work and back.

Edit: Suppose you have an unexpected day of driving and spend a lot of time on the road. You now have to wait how long before you can drive your car again?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Where would the electricity come from? In the United States, it is mostly from coal-fired plants. More coal-fired plants to supply all the electric cars = more pollution since those are the easiest to build.

Where would all the batteries for electric cars be disposed of?

Just thoughts to ponder.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Oh god we need fusion power. The problem I see right away with electric cars is that, one way or another, the energy to move that vehicle and its occupants has to come from somewhere. Right now, in the US, that energy is mainly coming from burning fossil fuels. Maybe it'll take place in a distant power plant, or maybe in the engine of your car.

We don't do nuclear power because people still seem to think that a nuclear reactor will blow up bomb-style if there's a problem. Then there's the waste issue. As I understand it, we don't reprocess nuclear waste because of concerns over weapons proliferation. My take on that: if the government wants to make weapons, they'll find a way to do it. So we might as well make use of reprocessing technology to get the most energy possible out of a given quantity of uranium ore. This would also reduce the quantity of waste produced.

Fusion is just too far away right now. It has yet to reach a positive efficiency, and once that's acheived, it must be made commercially viable.
But with fusion power, we could generate a lot of electricity with minimal emissions, and to get fuel, we've got a helluva lot of deuterium in the ocean. Then we could either make hydrogen for fuel cells, or provide electricity to charge (as yet uninvented) advanced batteries in cars.

Wind and solar could serve as stop-gaps, but of course they'd be quite expensive. Commercial solar cells are still expensive, not very efficient, and they only work during the day, when most people aren't charging their cars. Wind power isn't always constant, depending on where it's put. And you've got people complaining about their aesthetics. I'd prefer to see clean wind farms than a cluster of coal-fueled smokestacks.


And finally, there's the problem of the power grid. It's largely antiquated, and already having problems keeping up with demand. Now start charging lots of cars on that same power grid. I think that the phrase "rolling blackouts" will become popular in more places than just California.



Originally posted by: Savij
and americans demand cars with better fuel economy...until they realize that it's their life long dream to get a land crusher 1000. It's not like gm is the only one that can make an electric car...and why did toyota avoid the plug in hybrid? because electric cars are shit for the average suburban life style that drives the entire range just going to work and back.

Edit: Suppose you have an unexpected day of driving and spend a lot of time on the road. You now have to wait how long before you can drive your car again?
Yeah, and sadly, it seems that at every chance seen to improve efficiency, the manufacturer also increases horsepower. "Oh wow, look at me, my engine is noisy and I can accelerate 10% faster than most other vehicles! My life is very much significantly enhanced by this! Damn my mileage sucks."
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Haven't read the OP or the thread, or seen the documentary, but it basically boils down to money and who people knew.

The bridges lead certain places depending on who you associate with, obviously. It's not a conspiracy or anything like that, it's just how things happened.

It would have been just as easy for us to start building nuclear power plants in order to ramp up electric car production.

Unfortunately, negative "nuclear press" also contributed to the public's disregard for nuclear power...

Blahblah.. will read thread in a bit and respond more, I'm sure.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
There is enough spare capacity in the grid to cover electric cars easily in fact you could get rid of every gasoline car and not have to build a single new plant to meet capacity.

How, get rid of the massive amount of light pollution and effeciency in lighting.
Most of the plug in occurs at night when demand is actually the lowest, its why power company gives you evening rates in some places because nuclear power plants don't like up and down demand they like steady demand, same for coal etc. Usually they have to crank up the NG turbines to meet peak demand. having a more even demand is better for the grid.

Coal plants emit less greanhouse gas running electric motors because those types of cars are 90% effecieint where gasoline is 30%. Once the battery problem is dealt with an electric car will kick the crap out of a gasoline powered vehicle
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
The Tesla roadster has been getting a lot
of attention lately, 0-60 in 4 seconds, top speed around 130mph AMD 200 miles
on a single charge..And of course no emissions and much simpler design, less
moving parts to go bad..
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
"However, the very next sentence from his mouth, and I quote 'After we sat down and went over the limitations of the car, that list shrank to about 50.' Why in the world would would you demean a product that you're trying to get me to buy? Thats like the salesman at Costco trying to talk you out of buying that 60in HDTV its requires a certain sized room for optimal viewing."

because it was mostly a test program? and they were being honest about the limitations... why? because it was obviously not quite ready for retail. the film was quite slanted, people want to believe in conspiracies and get all irrate about it but the awful truth is the ev's weren't ready. its 10 years since they came out now right? whats the state of ev's? tesla? 100k:p hardly viable even if a nice toy. i really don't like directors that try to manipulate people with heavily biased reporting. as for crushing cars, they crush stuff they dont want around as liabilities:p turbine car? crushed also:p

during the 90's gas was what? $1.50? of course gm didn't want to dump anymore money into that dead end program than it needed to. no one would have wanted to buy it then, it was suv time. the only real mistake of gm was to dump the hybrid portion of that program. coulda had a jump on toyota.


basically i do'nt like people lying for a cause whether its an outright lie or one of omission. everyone thinks they have a righteous cause...you see this with creationists/abstinence folks and such, its not a good thing when they do it, its not a good thing when anyone does it.
 

Laminator

Senior member
Jan 31, 2007
852
2
91
QFT ^^^

This is why no one takes environmentalists seriously when it comes to business/engineering matters. Ask any sensible person in the 90's and even today - an engineer, a businessman, or an informed mainstream buyer - and they'll immediately be able to tell you what is wrong with electric cars. Of course, there was the horrendous performance and limited range; even the optimal numbers quoted by the car companies were disappointing. No, $100,000+ toy sports cars do not count, and that car was just released. Never mind the charging difficulties or the fact that you'd have to pay $5,000+ to exchange the battery every few years. Hybrid owners have to do that today, and many of them don't even know. And who wants to deal with the expensive manufacturing costs, not to mention the energy requirements for constructing such vehicles? In the end, there was no money to be made with electric cars, plain and simple. Americans didn't give a crap about the environment. They wanted SUV's, and the RX300 showed the car companies just how much money could be made by exploiting this. Never mind that most SUV's are driven by trophy wives, trophy daughters, or suburban-warrior dads who wouldn't even think of bringing their precious gas-guzzling vehicles to an off-road course.
 

Laminator

Senior member
Jan 31, 2007
852
2
91
Originally posted by: Jeff7
We don't do nuclear power because people still seem to think that a nuclear reactor will blow up bomb-style if there's a problem. Then there's the waste issue. As I understand it, we don't reprocess nuclear waste because of concerns over weapons proliferation. My take on that: if the government wants to make weapons, they'll find a way to do it. So we might as well make use of reprocessing technology to get the most energy possible out of a given quantity of uranium ore. This would also reduce the quantity of waste produced.
The waste issue has nothing to do with weapons. People are concerned about what to do with all the nuclear waste when the power plant is done with it. The federal government's current solution is to store all the nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, which is all right by me but the Nevadans aren't too happy about it. The waste is stored in specialized containers that are designed to be extremely robust but Nevadans are concerned about leaking and seismic issues.

Nuclear power provides nearly limitless, extremely clean (the pollution is in the form of heat and the aforementioned nuclear waste) electrical energy. Hell, it'll even solve our water problems thanks to desalination technology. It's making a slow rebound thanks to more public awareness about the role coal power plants play in global warming but our current level of technology will definitely not permit it to be used in vehicles as small as a car or a plane.
 

McCarthy

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,567
0
76
I'm a farmboy in flyover country and I'm using "Where's my damn electric car?" as my catchphrase these days.

While a pure electric with a 100mile range would work over 99% of the time and while I know I can rent an oilburner if I need to make a flying cross country trip for some reason, even I can't get over the psychological hangup of being limited like that. But since my pickup just sits there looking sad and neglected anyway I'd keep it and go pure electric vs an electric with a range extender.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
I gave the 100mi range as a conservative spec. Even with the pinnacle battery technology available a decade ago, getting a 300mi range out of an electric car wasn't a stretch. And today, perhaps further.

To answer the question of what happens when I need to spend additional time driving? Have I even come close to maxing out 100mi a day yet? Not in 8 years of driving have I even come close to that. Its similar to my battery powered wireless mouse. The charge has lasted more than 48 hours in the past, however, by putting it in its cradle effectively ensures that that charge will never run out. The battery will need to be replaced eventually though. Batteries do wear out in time.

A lot of people here seem to be repeating the company line of 'Its not ready, there was no demand, it wasn't commercially viable, etc.' But since then, there hasn't been a single fully electric car from a major automaker that I could buy from a dealership. Sure, there are concept cars and demonstration vehicles built by college students and such, but it really does seem like automakers don't want electric cars on the road. And why not? They make more money from the oversized Hummers and other SUVs.

Who said that an electric car would carry a 100k USD price tag? It wouldn't be difficult at all to get the price down below 30k. Hybrids today range in the low to mid 20s.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
I won't watch that "documentary" because of what I've read about it - people trying to find a conspiracy where there was none. You can dig up all the circumstantial evidence you want, but the fact is that electric cars are not (and definitely were not at the time) ready for the prime time. How about all of those electric cars developed by university engineering departments around the world? None of them work any better than the EV1. The market killed the electric car - which means it should have died.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: Bateluer
I gave the 100mi range as a conservative spec. Even with the pinnacle battery technology available a decade ago, getting a 300mi range out of an electric car wasn't a stretch. And today, perhaps further.

says who? and at what price? building something that is basically a stunt is meaningless.

Originally posted by: BateluerTo answer the question of what happens when I need to spend additional time driving? Have I even come close to maxing out 100mi a day yet? Not in 8 years of driving have I even come close to that. Its similar to my battery powered wireless mouse. The charge has lasted more than 48 hours in the past, however, by putting it in its cradle effectively ensures that that charge will never run out. The battery will need to be replaced eventually though. Batteries do wear out in time.

but thats not how people work. you can live in a prison cell size room. ok maybe a small RV sized room instead of a house. you could get by sure. but most people would not opt for such an sacrifice especially if it cost the same as a regular sized house. you don't even need an electric car going by that logic, go buy a motorcycle, since most people drive alone right? the logic doesn't work. people buy one vehicle that does a wide variety of tasks. yuppies would be the ones that could afford a weak electric car and a supplimentary gas vehicle for longer distances.

Originally posted by: BateluerA lot of people here seem to be repeating the company line of 'Its not ready, there was no demand, it wasn't commercially viable, etc.' But since then, there hasn't been a single fully electric car from a major automaker that I could buy from a dealership. Sure, there are concept cars and demonstration vehicles built by college students and such, but it really does seem like automakers don't want electric cars on the road. And why not? They make more money from the oversized Hummers and other SUVs.

more nonsense. you are saying there is a grand conspiracy of collusion between all companies ignoring a huge market to make money? hard to believe. its capitalism, where there is a gap someone will step in to make the cash. the simple and awful truth was that it wasn't ready for prime time. of course hobbyists and college students could make one, the basic concept works. its always been the batteries not having enough capacity to make it work for long enough to make it sellable that was the problem. college students also build solar cars after all. doesn't mean you'd even pretend you could build a commercial solar car. and of course they make more money off hummers. hummers work:p so what?


Originally posted by: BateluerWho said that an electric car would carry a 100k USD price tag? It wouldn't be difficult at all to get the price down below 30k. Hybrids today range in the low to mid 20s.

says who? all the electric car options today under 100k are garbage. hybrids don't cost 100k because they have battery capacity of maybe a mile:p adding additional batteries to make a prius a plugin that goes maybe 30 miles costs an additional 24k. 50k prius. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/arti.../07/21/BAG08R4M7E1.DTL
 

WolverineGator

Golden Member
Mar 20, 2001
1,011
0
76
Desi hit it right:

* charging will mostly occur at night (lower rates, less demand)
* gasoline pollutes more

Other benefits to electric vehicles include:

* superior performance
* better reliability
* better economy (regenerative braking, more efficient electric motors)

Environmentally friendly power sources will continue to take a bigger share of the energy market:
* wind - single turbines are now in the megawatt range!
* solar - improved efficiency and lower costs
* wave power: "A 100-megawatt array of them could be squeezed into two to three square miles... Our long-term goal is to get to 5 cents a kilowatt-hour..."

I'm certain a large portion of transportation will be hybrid-electric in the future in a transition to something else (fuel cell, CNG, electric?). Check out the Chevy Volt for example, which GM expects to introduce in 2010.
 

TitanDiddly

Guest
Dec 8, 2003
12,696
1
0
I've spent the past two days researching power systems to convert a car to battery electric. You know what? EVs just are not practical for today's consumer with present battery technology. The movie said that EVs meet consumer's needs 95% of the time, as if that was great. They've got it backwards. What is needed that a car that meets the needs of 95% of consumers, 100% of the time. Like present ICE cars. ICE makes much more sense. I'm now researching LPG conversions- kits can be had for about $2000 from the UK. I'm not an environmentalist, my only motivation for making an EV would be as a neat project and the cheap driving. Actually- the driving isn't actually cheap- filling up the battery is cheap, but a multi-thousand dollar battery only lasts 5 years. I see a much greater future for hybrids- LPG or diesel hybrids with CVTs. You could get good efficiency there.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
First of all, the EV1 cost GM vastly more than "23k to 35k". GM lost money on every EV1 produced. The reason that you couldn't buy one is simply because it would have been a $90,000 car if they wanted to turn any kind of profit on it. (Industry estimates indicate that the EV1 cost GM $80,000 per car to produce.) The only way to make the car even remotely "affordable" to consumers was to offer a lease program. The EV1 was a data-gathering exercise. It was not ever meant to be a viable mass-production vehicle. It's similar to the Chrylser Turbine cars. If they had offered it for sale at even a break-even cost of $80,000, there would not have been buyers.

Secondly, all GM did was inform people that the car cost at least $299/month to lease, had a maximum range of about 80 miles, and took up to 15 hours to fully recharge. They didn't "demean" the product, they simply gave an honest assessment of what it was capable of.

As for me, until an electric car has a range of at least 300 miles AND the ability to charge from complete drain to full charge in under 5 minutes I'm not interested. I routinely drive more than 300 miles in a day and a car that needed 8+ hours to "refuel" would be essentially worthless to me.

ZV
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
First of all, the EV1 cost GM vastly more than "23k to 35k". GM lost money on every EV1 produced. The reason that you couldn't buy one is simply because it would have been a $90,000 car if they wanted to turn any kind of profit on it. (Industry estimates indicate that the EV1 cost GM $80,000 per car to produce.) The only way to make the car even remotely "affordable" to consumers was to offer a lease program.

I am uncertain whether or not this was true or not, but the film alleges that GM hand produced the EV1, with minimal automation on the assembly line. This allowed them to produce roughly 4 cars per day. Had the assembly been more automated and ramped up, the cost would have dropped significantly.

You may need to drive more than 300 miles in a day, but the vast majority of Americans don't and would be fine with a car that could only go 80 miles on a charge. They'd just have to remember to plug it in when not in use, either at home or work. Which means the infrastructure would need to be in place to be effective.

I still wish the automakers would offer an electric car, even if it was just a lease. They'd lease out every vehicle they produced in a lot of locations, such as CA.
 

ViviTheMage

Lifer
Dec 12, 2002
36,189
87
91
madgenius.com
only if the big business would sacrifice some money for the greater ecological good. someday they will do that, I hope :).

It would be the best way of 'donating'.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Bateluer
the vast majority of Americans don't and would be fine with a car that could only go 80 miles on a charge.

Maybe 80% to 90% of the time they would be, yes. But the other 10% to 20% of the time most people will need to go more than 300 miles in a day. Family road trips, vacations, etc. To most people, the inconvenience of having to rent a car for those occasions or the expense of having a second vehicle for those occasions is not a viable option. People need a car that can handle those occasional trips. They also need something where, if they forget to plug it in overnight, they aren't screwed the next morning.

If I forget to fill up my gas tank on the way home from work, I can stop in the morning and be on my way again in a couple minutes. If I forget to plug in an electric car, well, I guess I'm just not able to go to work.

Until charging an electric car is a fast and easy as filling a gas tank, they won't take off.

ZV
 

Mermaidman

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2003
7,987
93
91
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Bateluer
the vast majority of Americans don't and would be fine with a car that could only go 80 miles on a charge.

Maybe 80% to 90% of the time they would be, yes. But the other 10% to 20% of the time most people will need to go more than 300 miles in a day. Family road trips, vacations, etc. To most people, the inconvenience of having to rent a car for those occasions or the expense of having a second vehicle for those occasions is not a viable option. People need a car that can handle those occasional trips. They also need something where, if they forget to plug it in overnight, they aren't screwed the next morning.

If I forget to fill up my gas tank on the way home from work, I can stop in the morning and be on my way again in a couple minutes. If I forget to plug in an electric car, well, I guess I'm just not able to go to work.

Until charging an electric car is a fast and easy as filling a gas tank, they won't take off.

ZV
There is no vehicle that suits everybody's needs. Many households have multiple vehicles, so it's conceivable to have a low-polluting vehicle in the stable. I guess the question boils down to how many people would find an electric car viable, which is the OP's question :D

Good thread!
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
Oh I'll think they will take off without a quick charge, although thats why they are pursuing ultra capacitor technology.
For two car family's, I'd have my electric and my Dino burner as well, it would be perfect in a lot of family situations. Put a solar panel on it and it can charge all day while I'm at work to extend the range. .
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
if the electric car was only charged from 100% coal fired electricity , then i'd be ok with that, otherwise, the energy density of oil/gas/diesel is so much better, lets use that up first
 

acole1

Golden Member
Sep 28, 2005
1,543
0
0
Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
only if the big business would sacrifice some money for the greater ecological good. someday they will do that, I hope :).

It would be the best way of 'donating'.

*tap tap* ...is my sarcasm meter broken, or do people have dreams that crazy? :confused:

GM already struggles financially, now they are supposed to lose money via "donations?" That's not a company I would want to invest in!

What happens when they have no more money to "donate" and tank? How can they do anything then? Wouldn't it be smarter to make money (shocking idea, I know) so that they can do long term good?

If you really cared, and stopped pointing fingers, you would say "go ahead and make the $80k electric car and I will buy it! I will make my own 'donation.'"