JERUSALEM (AP) — It was an audacious idea that came to symbolize Israel’s self-described status as “Start-Up Nation,” a company that believed it could replace most gasoline-powered cars with electric vehicles and reduce the world’s reliance on oil — and all within a few years.
But it all came crashing down.
The company, Better Place, started out as a source of pride and a symbol of Israel’s status as a global high-tech power, but it suffered from a local brand of hubris and overreach. On Sunday, it announced plans to liquidate after burning through almost a billion dollars and failing to sell its silent fleet of French-made sedans to a skeptical public.
“This is a very sad day for all of us. We stand by the original vision as formulated by Shai Agassi of creating a green alternative that would lessen our dependence on highly polluting transportation technologies,” the company said. “Unfortunately, the path to realizing that vision was difficult, complex and littered with obstacles, not all of which we were able to overcome.”
…
Agassi, 45, believed that in an era of global warming and rising oil prices, environmentally friendly electric cars could be the wave of the future, if only a way could be found to overcome the limited range of their batteries.
Full story here: http://www.ecnmag.com/news/2013/05/trailblazing-israeli-electric-car-company-close
Okay, I’ll bite. What do these magic cars use for energy? ( And please don’t say electricity! )
Perhaps he means relocate the “highly polluting” energy production to a power plant upstream ( and increase net energy use in the process ). I can’t yet find a one-stop chart for Israel electricity production but this one seems to outline fossil fuels as the vast majority ( I am guessing they have zero nuclear plants due to terrorism issues but I might be incorrect ).
Therefore everything written in that press release is a complete lie – these are not “electric cars”, they are fossil-fuel-powered cars, full stop, period. If we had the death penalty for marketing lies, or at least water-boarding, this nonsense would stop quickly because we would soon run out of advertising executives and marketers.
From CodeTech on May 28, 2013 at 10:51 pm:
The “dubious benefit” in the US is the cursed alcohol gas, the E10 “up to 10% ethanol” gasoline. It’s trashing the lawnmowers, leave any in the tank or the carb between the cutting seasons, and the carb gets corroded, the rubber starts swelling up, going to heck, even though it was supposed to be rated as compatible with the ethanol.
With people finding out they might only get one or two years out of a mower, getting an electric does make sense, the prices are currently similar. But pulling around the extension cord gets old quick.
And now I see I can get a handy rechargeable from Amazon for… actually the same to less for a simple gas mower with mulching and bagging options.
Rechargeables are making sense, they are a practical and prudent purchase, because the government has f**k*d up what always worked before, with the “dubious benefit” making gasoline mowers likely costing more.
(PS The comment looking at Amazon pricing was at 11:46PM and still awaiting moderation as I posted this.)
LamontT says:
May 28, 2013 at 9:43 pm
But what is the resale value of a 4-8 year old electric car needing a new battery versus an instantly useable second hand petrol car?
I would have thought that the former is pretty much a write-off.
Does no one remember the beautiful Jaguar hearse? About 1971, I believe.
Janice Moore says:
May 28, 2013 at 10:15 pm
Okay. Which of the following two vehicles would YOU prefer to own?
Neither, I’ll keep my 1994 Land Rover Defender thanks very much 😉
As an aside, re the ‘station wagon/shooting brake’ discussion, where I live in rural Wiltshire, we tend to use their names, except for ‘proper’ Land Rover owners like me who can simply use Landy.
Had today’s electric car entered into the horse-and-cart market so long ago, they’d be selling like crazy. far greater range and speed of the horse, with none of the mess. Give a damn if it takes all night to charge.
But it’s all come too late. We’ve been spoiled by the IC engine,which simply works just fine. Electric cars still have too many limitations in their current form. Hydrogen/electric fuel cells sound a better option. Biofuels are stupid, unless you can produce enough ONLY from your own septic or other waste sources.
Come to think of it – coal and oil are nature’s waste sources..
WUWT’s many commenters usually pride themselves with being pro science and rational thought. Why then this irrational anger towards of the concept of electric cars? Just because “greens” and AGW proponents like them doesn’t make the technology as such worthless. Electric cars – just like like gasoline cars – have their pro’s and con’s.
Analogous, telephones should be superior to mobile phones, which need inefficient expensive batteries that need to be re-charged all the time. Or, as a Swedish politician argued in the early 1900’s, why waste good money on telephones when we have an exellent postal service.
As long as there is cheap gasoline there will be no electric cars. Read the history books. Electric cars predate gasoline cars. Fleets of taxis in NY were electric. Massive delivery trucks with 2 tons of batteries shipped goods locally. But by the 1920’s the electric car was gone. The same reasons they couldn’t compete with gasoline automobiles are still there.
Per T on May 29, 2013 at 1:25 am
WUWT’s many commenters usually pride themselves with being pro science and rational thought. Why then this irrational anger towards of the concept of electric cars?”…
I would love an electric car! But it has to go farther than 40 miles on an 8 hour charge.
Solve the technical challenges that were there 100 years ago and still here today and I’ll be the first to buy one. Even if the electric is produced by burning coal.
@Per T – It’s not that the technology of electric cars is worthless; far from it in fact – as I recall it, Anthony has one.
What gets up my nose, and I’m not alone here, is that they are not commercially viable at the moment without a) a huge ‘bung’ from the government to get production up and running, followed by a large subsidy per vehicle to move any off the forecourt. In addition, as things currently (ha!) stand, once you’ve driven the 250 miles or so, you need a fresh battery or a charge. Unless and until the systems have advanced sufficiently for a battery swap to be carried out in minutes (which is likely to present various logistical problems such as commonality of battery, location etc.) or technological advances have provided for (very very) rapid charging without damage to the battery, the disadvantages will more than outweigh the advantages in anything other than niche markets.
We have discussed the British milk float here before. I drove one (illegally but hey) in the 1970s so electric vehicles have their place. It’s just that it is somewhat limited at the moment. I for one would love to see a viable electric car but it’s likely to be a few years away.
Janice Moore says:
May 28, 2013 at 10:15 pm
Okay. Which of the following two vehicles would YOU prefer to own?
Neither, I’ll keep my 1994 Land Rover Defender thanks very much ;-)”
I’ll keep my 1959 CJ5 Jeep!
Per T – same here. I’d like one too.
Just as soon as you can find me one that gets comparable distance from a charge, runs A/C in summer and heat when it’s -30C in winter, can be ready to go in the same minute or two I spend holding the gas nozzle at Esso, doesn’t cost an extra $10k or $20k over what I have now, doesn’t have hundreds of pounds of extremely hazardous material to spray all over in case of a collision, and looks good in metallic colors.
In other words, at this point the sacrifices needed to have an electric car DO NOT make up for the benefit, which I consider to be dubious at best.
And kadaka, I’m aware that there ARE cheaper cordless lawnmowers, in fact I seriously did consider a Black & Decker one… but my point is that it was the SAME mower, just in a cordless version.
As an example, I have a Caliber SRT4 – but I really don’t like Calibers. The base model is a piece of crap. You could get them for under $10,000… but mine was $34k in the showroom. To me, the benefit was anything but dubious. Gobs more power, incredible handling, massive side bolsters on the seats, 9 airbags, massive stereo with sub, custom stitched leather seats, and even decent mileage.
Odd to think that the current range on EV’s is little better than the range on the orginal EV’s form a hundered years ago . But the bottom line is , range , cost charging times are what holds them back for most people care little about what fuels their cars ,their concern is ‘can I get it’ and ‘how much ‘
They stole the drip irrigation tech from Steve Wynn (yes, that one, in Vegas who is in the vanguard globally), from the Indians (East) and American scientists at Purdue and NASA for hydroponics, and they did nothing in industrial biotechnology, also known as white biotechnology.
You’re funny.
“…if only a way could be found to overcome the limited range of their batteries.”
There you have fifteen words which sum up the alternative energy farce. We know the drastic limitations, and proceed as if they did not exist. You are supposed to say “whoops” after you have had a stupid idea, not after you have acted on the idea in the full knowledge that it is stupid.
Another coal and oil-fired car company goes belly up. There, that fixed that for you.
.
goldminor says: May 28, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Electric cars have a definite place in the future. within the next 100 years or so.
____________________________________
Of course they do. Electric cars are actually fantastic modes of transport. They have endless buckets of torque, they can be 4-wheel variable drive, they are extremely fast, very smooth and quiet, and very light (minus the battery).
There are only two problems that need solving, before they take over the world of surface transport:
a. A battery that has at least 10x the current storage density.
b. An electrical grid running on Thorium power.
Get those two right, and an electric car would be my first choice.
.
Dr Ken Pollock says:
May 28, 2013 at 3:43 pm
I would not be so quick to dismiss emerging technologies. My (now deceased) engineer father, with over 200 patents to his credit, used to say that if the human mind could conceive it, it would eventually be attainable. I believe he was correct. Click on the link below. All sorts of things are on the near horizon.
http://www.spacetechexpo.com/cella-energy-signs-fuel-source-deal-with-kennedy
Richard, I am all for ingenuity but it is not able to break the laws of the universe, like the laws of thermodynamics. Clever people have sought “perpetual motion machines” for centuries. They will not happen. Cella is a clever company and they are looking at niche markets like the space applications in your link, but the professor in charge wants to conquer road transport and at that scale, your limitation is energy supply – most particularly if you have the idea it has to be renewable. Then things get really tricky. Maybe we have to wait for thorium power as someone mentioned earlier!
With Rossi’s ecat proven to be for real (http://www.e-catworld.com/), it is obvious that cars will run for 10000 miles on a single charge of Rossipowder.
Batteries have only one aim in life, and that’s to go flat.
Chris
Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it–electric cars predate those powered by the internal combustion engine and even now don’t make as much sense. Autos powered by LENR will be the format of the future.
Face it, folks, If left alone (without crazy government intervention), the free market will sort it all out.
Oh, and those who think electric cars are environmentally friendly (conserve CO2), here’s this timely analysis from Forbes:
http://www.realclearenergy.org/2013/05/28/tesla039s_carbon_footprint_is_no_better_than_a_honda_civic039s_253831.html
Why not a CNG option in vehicles so they can be filled at home? For the average suburban commuter this could eliminate the need for gas stations. With the surplus gas available from fracking doesn’t this make more sense than batteries? There is likely much less transmission and storage loss with natural gas than there is with electricity and CNG burns cleaner than gasoline.
Dodgy Geezer says:
May 28, 2013 at 2:12 pm
…Electric car is like communism. Everywhere it has tried it has failed…
No it isn’t. It’s like Capitalism, and everywhere it’s been staggeringly successful.
Look at the data. Chap gathers some seed capital, goes to a government body and takes millions in subsidies
Nope. It’s crony capitalism, also known as crapitalism. Although, crony socialism would be just as accurate. The bailouts (both auto and bank) fall into this category as well. The one thing it is NOT is a free market.