Why did George Walker Bush destroy the electric car?

Question

Thousand upon thousands of brand new electric cars were shredded on the orders of the George Walker Bush regime. Why?

Huell Houser's road trip and KPFK Radio are my sources.

Answer 1

--------------
Not quite accurate to say that our President shredded cars, but George did have something to do with this.
*
What the Bush administration did was to support and agressively push the carmakers' agenda toward getting California's zero-emissions-vehicle mandate modified so that electric vehicles didn't need to be made. What followed was the pulling and shredding of most of the electric vehicles on the road by the automakers.
*
In place of the electric vehicles, the government asked for commitments to research and develop fuel-cell and hydrogen based cars.
*
Now, the following in an opinion, but I will back it up. I believe fuel cells and hydrogen are a smoke screen, to siphon attention and research dollars away from more viable alternative fuel cars.
*
First of all, a fuel-cell car IS an electric car. But instead of a battery, the electricity is provided by a hydrogen fuel cell. So the question becomes: are fuel cells really better than batteries?
*
The problem with hydrogen is that there is no place where hydrogen can be freely gathered, anywhere on earth. That is, all hydrogen on earth has already been "burned". To extract hydrogen from water, electricity must be used. Because of the laws of chemistry and physics, more electricity must be used to obtain the hydrogen than you will ever get back out of the fuel cell. For the most part, more than half of the electricity will be wasted.
*
Since we'll be using large amounts of electricity anyway, why not just put the electricity into a battery? This way, we will not have to waste half the electricity, we will not have to truck hydrogen around the country, and people can fuel their cars right in their garages. Refueling by wire is far more efficient than trucking fuel to gas stations (the electric grid is 95% efficient.)
*
But doesn't battery tehnology suck? Not anymore. There's lots of amazing battery technology in the research pipeline, and all of it is decades closer to reality than fuel cells. Driving ranges of 300 miles or more, with 5-minute recharge times are possible, and I believe we will see this in the next 2 to 5 years.
*
Example: General Motors has lately been showing off their prototype fuel-cell car, the Sequel. Problem: this car weighs close to 5,000 pounds, and has a 300-mile range.

Contrast this with an electric car, powered by modern lithium-ion batteries, like the Tesla electric sports car ( http://www.teslamotors.com .) The Tesla weighs 2,500 pounds, and has a 250-mile range with a 900-pound battery pack. Suppose we added enough additional batteries to make it the same weight as the fuel-cell car? It would then have a driving range of almost 1,000 miles, way more impressive than the fuel-cell car. Almost as expensive, too!
*
Incidentally, the idea that electric vehicles pollute as much or more than conventional cars is deeply flawed. Power plants burn and transmit energy far more efficiently than the way gasoline is used in a conventional car. And electric motors are many times more efficient than gas engines. Thus, far less pollution per mile. And the proposition gets better and better as clean sources of power are added to the grid.
---------------

Answer 2

Its silly to think he did. The market, hybrid-electric technology, advancements in fuel cell technology and the environmental impact of electric cars killed this technology. In the case of the market, no one is willing to pay large amounts of money for a car that can only go a hundred or so miles before needing to be recharged. Therefore limiting their use to local travel. Hybrid electric technology has been widely popular as it offers alot of the advantages of non-gasoline based engines but still the power and mileage per tank that we are accustomed to. Fuel cell technology, while still in a stall, is thought to be the next generation of automobile engine technology and it has been decided that providing the necessary infrastructure for Fuel Cells is more likely to pay off. Finally, the most important issue is that since electric cars are charged by our electric outlets, they are getting fueled technically by fossil fuels such as coal and oil for the most part instead of gasoline (refined oil) and therefore their impact on the environment is even worse than our current gasoline technology based engines. Try biofuel, it is the best current method for getting cheap fuel for your auto without having a huge impact on the environment!

Answer 3

Right, these magical cars that produce no ill effects on the environment at all! Oh wait, except for the energy used to produce the electricity that powers them. Not to mention the polution that is produced every time any car is produced. Get a clue.

Answer 4

Well because electric cars do not make money for the corporations that have a strangle hold on our government of course. I dont know about this shredding cars, but I did readt that he killed the electric car.

Answer 5

Just say no , bud. There is a record number of Hybrid and electrical vehicles on the road. Your myth: BUSTED

Answer 6

It would take a heap of convincing (or at least a reliabe source) for me to believe that.

What's interesting is how many people believe anything that said on this site.

Answer 7

Gas cars mean more money. It's all about greed.

Answer 8

Gotta say, I'm not understanding you, chief.
I'm not a Bush fan but, what are your sources?

Answer 9

Do you have some sort of evidence of these orders?

Answer 10

george dubya has very close ties with oil companies, i thought that would be a well known fact,