"Who Killed the Electric Car" was on last night, so I decided to try to watch it objectively.

I came to a couple of conclusions, sorry if they're random:

While the lions' share of wrath is directed at GM, there are only fleeting mentions to the fact that not only Ford (with their Ranger Electric and Th!nk cars), but also Toyota (with their RAV4 Electric) and Honda (EV) DID THE EXACT SAME THING! How is that fair?

I am the only one in my car most of the time, and with my present commute, I would be the ideal candidate for an electric- with the 5 miles a day I drive, I could go all week on one charge. But if the EV1 was sold at its actual cost (profit notwithstanding), which GM has pegged at about $75,000.00 per EV1, my car payment would be in the range of $1,415.00 a month (60 month loan, 5% interest), or three times what I am paying now. So, based on my habits, I could easily be an "early adopter", but the price for entry is exclusionary.

What about when I want to go out with my friends, who just happen to be pretty spread out- am I supposed to ask them to have a charging station installed at their house, so I can plug in my car while we take their car to the movies, to the bar, et cetera? This isn't exactly a cell phone here.

And what about when I needed to take a longer trip- like this August, when I'm participating in a charity golf tournament in Lake Geneva. What am I supposed to do for that- rent a car for the day?

Now, I know we've come a long way with several technologies- thin-film solar panels, spiral-wound batteries, et cetera, so I'm sure weight can be reduced and range could be extended, but how far? I mean, the EV1 was an exercise in minimalism- two seats, almost no cargo space, so anywhere I go, if there's more than one other person (say, a double-date), someone else has to drive.

Then there's the whole "where's the energy coming from?" argument, which, frankly, is an argument it seems the enviornmentalists have seemingly chosen to sweep under the rug. Where does our power come from? Currently, in this state, it either comes from coal-fired plants, or nuclear power. So, if preserving the enviornment for generations to come is the main reason for the villification of the oil industry and the internal combustion engine, why has nothing been said about the issues of, for instance, long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel? The car may not be polluting, but we need to burn more fuel (or worse, use more nuclear power) to generate it.

Another thing that I noticed of late- and this wasn't necessarily about the movie. It seems to me that the majority of the most vocal proponents are liberal, self-proclaimed Democrats... yet one of the pillars of the Democratic power base are unions. And what are two of the biggest unions out there? The Teamsters, and the UAW. So, while the Dems can talk about new legislation (leading to more bureacracies, a larger Federal Government, higher taxes, and patronage jobs, I'm sure) to mandate "green" thinking, a significant portion of their power base would be alienated by those moves, no? So in the end, would anything they pass amount to little more than lip service for the "greenies"?