It’s that time of year. You know the moment when it hits. The sun is shining and the breeze is warm. You’re in the car, the windows are down, and that song, one you haven’t heard in forever, comes on the radio. And, all of a sudden, life is very good.
But what ever happened to those silly pop tunes? Granted, at the time, an awful lot of them seemed really annoying. There would always be some tune that got played incessantly, and it would usually be the most inane thing out there.
But it struck me recently that there really are no more new happy, mindless tunes to hum along to on the radio. Unless you actually like the very narrow list of old hits that get played endlessly on the canned, preprogrammed digital loops that pass for radio these days, you are out of luck.
I found myself pondering the death of good pop over a microbrew at one of my favorite Easton establishments recently. The bar’s house CD player, which holds about 100 of the owner’s picks, shuffled to a song I haven’t heard since I was in grade school—“Mr. Blue Sky” by the Electric Light Orchestra.
It had been so long since I’d heard it, I wasn’t sure I was really hearing it, and I wasn’t even sure at first it really was ELO, despite the distinctive sound.
But the experience hit a nerve, and I went out and bought a “best of” CD. While I was at it, I stumbled over Yes’ 90125 album, which was popular when I was in high school.
Okay, so I’m dating myself here. Both bands and albums are ancient history, right?
Yup, it’s true. But I’ve noticed something interesting while I’ve been basking in the complex vocal harmonies and sounds of analog synthesizers of yesteryear.
This music is actually designed to put one in a good mood. And it succeeds admirably, which is why it was so popular in the first place, even if it has been buried by Clear Channel today.
This is a concept that is missing from most of the currently popular stuff I hear on TV and the radio. While some of the best of today’s music is designed to make one think, TV and radio don’t generally play what I consider to be the best, and the message is more than just generally negative—it’s downright toxic.
I started to think even more about it, and I tried to remember the last popular, relatively new tune I’ve heard on the radio that specifically makes me feel good.
The most recent I came up with was “Give a Little Bit.” But interestingly enough, it’s a remake of a “silly pop tune” written by Supertramp in the 1970s.
So I thought a little bit more. The closest thing I could come up with was a few Green Day tunes, but much as I like them, they really don’t qualify because they’re cynical, even if the melodies are relatively happy.
I still can’t trace back exactly when the last time I heard a new purely “feel good” pop song is, but I think it may go back to the beginning of the war in Iraq, if not even before that. But really, can you think of any new, original hits with a positive tone that have come out since 9/11?
They may have been headed out for even longer than that. Silly pop tunes are by nature happy, bubbly creatures, but the world is pretty far from that mentality right now.
However, it may be just what we need. I’ve been playing that ELO CD in my car a lot lately, and it’s been pretty nice out. You know, the weather’s fine, the breeze is warm and the windows are down most of the time. And, as I drive by, I have noticed that the music makes just about everyone smile, just like it was written to, three decades ago.
“Sun is shining in the sky
There ain't a cloud in sight
it's stopped raining
Everybody's in the play
And don't you know it's a beautiful new day, Hey-hey
Running down the avenue
See how the sun shines brightly
In the city
On the streets where once was pity
Mr. Blue Sky is living here today, Hey-hey
Mr. Blue Sky,
please tell us why,
you had to hide away for so long,
Where did we go wrong?”
—“Mr. Blue Sky,” by Jeff Lynne of the Electric Light Orchestra
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
What really happened to electric cars?
“It’s like waking up every morning with a full tank of gas—except that it’s not gas.”—an EV1 driver
“What the detractors and the critics of electric vehicles have been saying for years in true. The electric vehicle is not for everybody. Given the limited range, it can only meet the needs of 90 percent of the population.”—EV1 driver Ed Begley Jr.
You may have heard a little about the concept of electric cars. You may have also heard that they are not practical, that there were problems with batteries being able to store enough energy.
That may have once been true, but viable electric cars have been around since cars were first introduced. In fact, about a hundred years ago, there were more electric cars on American roads than gasoline-powered ones.
Modern electric cars were introduced in California in 1996. The state had introduced the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate in 1990. Since automakers had already been developing electric car technology and California had been working towards an electric car charge-up infrastructure, initially, the idea seemed to work well.
Ford’s Saturn division first introduced the EV1 in the late 1990s, an entirely electrically powered vehicle. While in just a few months, thousands of people signed up on a waiting list to lease the vehicles—they were never offered for outright sale—in the end only about 800 EV1s were actually made, and the competition for those vehicles was high. Mel Gibson, who eventually was able to lease one of the vehicles, had to fill out a detailed questionnaire to prove he was a worthy candidate. Sales representatives were required to get permission to lease the vehicles they were supposedly trying to “sell.”
When first introduced, the EV1 held a charge that was good for about 75 miles. But interestingly enough, GM didn’t use the best technology available, even though it was reasonably affordable. The first EV1s utilized standard acid-lead batteries manufactured by AC Delco, a GM subsidiary, even though GM had purchased superior nickel-hydride technology for the project, which would allow a charge to take the car about 125 miles. But this technology was not utilized until later, and when it looked like it might actually succeed, the technology was sold to Chevron Texaco.
In 2001, California was sued by car manufacturers for its zero emission law, and the federal government, led by our current president, George W. Bush, joined the suit against California. Interestingly enough, the White House Chief of Staff at the time was Andrew Card, former vice president of GM and president and CEO of the American Auto Manufacturers.
Meanwhile, supposed grass-roots organizations that were lobbying against an electrical charging station infrastructure in California were exposed to be funded by the oil industry.
Eventually, in April of 2003, while war raged in Iraq, California killed its zero emissions mandate.
GM and other manufacturers of electric vehicles immediately took action—they began recalling leased electric vehicles.
Nearly every electric car was available only for lease, not purchase, and lessors were not allowed to buy or re-lease their vehicles, despite the fact that many tried. Complaints from customers fell on deaf ears.
The fleet of EV1s was collected by GM and taken off the road. Research and photos gathered by electric car enthusiasts and activists indicate that nearly without exception, the EV1 fleet was systematically crushed, shredded and dumped in a landfill. Similar electric vehicles, including the Ford Think, Toyota’s Rav EV series and Honda electric vehicles were similarly gathered and similarly destroyed.
In a number of California cities, protests were held, and activists and EV drivers even staged a funeral. Even local officials attended, as many were EV drivers and supporters, including Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti and California State Senator Alan S. Leventhal, both of whom were EV1 drivers and enthusiasts.
None of this is ancient history—the calculated fall of electric vehicles has taken place in just the last few years, all during the war in Iraq. The destroyed electric cars were still only a few years old, and they were mechanically sound. People wanted to drive them, and in fact, EV1 drivers and activists offered GM $1.9 million to buy out the leases on the last remaining 78 vehicles. GM never responded and destroyed the cars.
So what was the real motivation behind the destruction of the EVs? There are a lot of answers and nearly all of them lead back to big oil.
But I think the problem is a little larger, if you can believe that. See, you generally charge up an EV at home—you just plug it in and it charges overnight, at an equivalent cost of about 60 cents a “gallon.” Enterprising homeowners in appropriate geographical locations could even use solar or wind power to supplement their charging. This “autonomy,” not being dependent on big oil or big corporations, combined with the possibility of using an actual renewable power source is what really irks big oil and car manufacturers.
Also, electric vehicles do not depend on the internal combustion engine, a device that requires a lot of costly parts and maintenance, which means further “lost” profits for those companies. Electric cars don’t require oil changes, catalytic converters, or even an exhaust system, since they do not produce exhaust. They even require less brake maintenance, since the car automatically brakes itself to an extent when one ceases to apply pressure to the accelerator.
Each gallon of gasoline burned produces 19 pounds of carbon dioxide. Existing electrical plants supply the power for EVs, and even coal-fired plants provide a better efficiency than current gasoline-powered vehicles, especially since pollution created by power-plants can be controlled and collected at the source, as opposed to being released everywhere one’s car goes.
In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush proudly said that his administration was working towards alternative fuel technologies, particularly hydrogen fuel cell technology. But there are still major problems with this concept, and a working fleet of vehicles is still well over a decade away. In addition, hydrogen vehicles will never allow the consumer to fuel up at home—a large infrastructure of at least 20,000 to 30,000 hydrogen filling stations will be needed before these vehicles will be viable.
Meanwhile, oil companies continue to profit. Gasoline prices in the Lehigh Valley hover around $3 per gallon. In 2003, oil company profits were about $33 billion. In 2004, profits were approximately $47 billion, and in 2005, they were $64 billion.
Clearly, some people have monetary incentive to keep the status quo, no matter what the cost to the rest of us, or the planet we live on and call home.
Clean, quiet, fast (EVs can generally do 0 to 60 miles per hour in under 4 seconds), non-polluting technology that is not dependent on foreign oil exists—and was literally shredded less than five years ago. While an unjust war based on lies over oil rages in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, I cannot think of a more unwise move, nor one that was less moral.
To find out more about the rise and fall of electric vehicles, see the documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” or go to www.whokilledtheelectriccarmovie.com
Christina Georgiou is the editor of The Easton News. She is currently on extended leave due to a family emergency, but can be reached at cgeorgiou@lehighvalleynewsgroup.com.
“What the detractors and the critics of electric vehicles have been saying for years in true. The electric vehicle is not for everybody. Given the limited range, it can only meet the needs of 90 percent of the population.”—EV1 driver Ed Begley Jr.
You may have heard a little about the concept of electric cars. You may have also heard that they are not practical, that there were problems with batteries being able to store enough energy.
That may have once been true, but viable electric cars have been around since cars were first introduced. In fact, about a hundred years ago, there were more electric cars on American roads than gasoline-powered ones.
Modern electric cars were introduced in California in 1996. The state had introduced the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate in 1990. Since automakers had already been developing electric car technology and California had been working towards an electric car charge-up infrastructure, initially, the idea seemed to work well.
Ford’s Saturn division first introduced the EV1 in the late 1990s, an entirely electrically powered vehicle. While in just a few months, thousands of people signed up on a waiting list to lease the vehicles—they were never offered for outright sale—in the end only about 800 EV1s were actually made, and the competition for those vehicles was high. Mel Gibson, who eventually was able to lease one of the vehicles, had to fill out a detailed questionnaire to prove he was a worthy candidate. Sales representatives were required to get permission to lease the vehicles they were supposedly trying to “sell.”
When first introduced, the EV1 held a charge that was good for about 75 miles. But interestingly enough, GM didn’t use the best technology available, even though it was reasonably affordable. The first EV1s utilized standard acid-lead batteries manufactured by AC Delco, a GM subsidiary, even though GM had purchased superior nickel-hydride technology for the project, which would allow a charge to take the car about 125 miles. But this technology was not utilized until later, and when it looked like it might actually succeed, the technology was sold to Chevron Texaco.
In 2001, California was sued by car manufacturers for its zero emission law, and the federal government, led by our current president, George W. Bush, joined the suit against California. Interestingly enough, the White House Chief of Staff at the time was Andrew Card, former vice president of GM and president and CEO of the American Auto Manufacturers.
Meanwhile, supposed grass-roots organizations that were lobbying against an electrical charging station infrastructure in California were exposed to be funded by the oil industry.
Eventually, in April of 2003, while war raged in Iraq, California killed its zero emissions mandate.
GM and other manufacturers of electric vehicles immediately took action—they began recalling leased electric vehicles.
Nearly every electric car was available only for lease, not purchase, and lessors were not allowed to buy or re-lease their vehicles, despite the fact that many tried. Complaints from customers fell on deaf ears.
The fleet of EV1s was collected by GM and taken off the road. Research and photos gathered by electric car enthusiasts and activists indicate that nearly without exception, the EV1 fleet was systematically crushed, shredded and dumped in a landfill. Similar electric vehicles, including the Ford Think, Toyota’s Rav EV series and Honda electric vehicles were similarly gathered and similarly destroyed.
In a number of California cities, protests were held, and activists and EV drivers even staged a funeral. Even local officials attended, as many were EV drivers and supporters, including Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti and California State Senator Alan S. Leventhal, both of whom were EV1 drivers and enthusiasts.
None of this is ancient history—the calculated fall of electric vehicles has taken place in just the last few years, all during the war in Iraq. The destroyed electric cars were still only a few years old, and they were mechanically sound. People wanted to drive them, and in fact, EV1 drivers and activists offered GM $1.9 million to buy out the leases on the last remaining 78 vehicles. GM never responded and destroyed the cars.
So what was the real motivation behind the destruction of the EVs? There are a lot of answers and nearly all of them lead back to big oil.
But I think the problem is a little larger, if you can believe that. See, you generally charge up an EV at home—you just plug it in and it charges overnight, at an equivalent cost of about 60 cents a “gallon.” Enterprising homeowners in appropriate geographical locations could even use solar or wind power to supplement their charging. This “autonomy,” not being dependent on big oil or big corporations, combined with the possibility of using an actual renewable power source is what really irks big oil and car manufacturers.
Also, electric vehicles do not depend on the internal combustion engine, a device that requires a lot of costly parts and maintenance, which means further “lost” profits for those companies. Electric cars don’t require oil changes, catalytic converters, or even an exhaust system, since they do not produce exhaust. They even require less brake maintenance, since the car automatically brakes itself to an extent when one ceases to apply pressure to the accelerator.
Each gallon of gasoline burned produces 19 pounds of carbon dioxide. Existing electrical plants supply the power for EVs, and even coal-fired plants provide a better efficiency than current gasoline-powered vehicles, especially since pollution created by power-plants can be controlled and collected at the source, as opposed to being released everywhere one’s car goes.
In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush proudly said that his administration was working towards alternative fuel technologies, particularly hydrogen fuel cell technology. But there are still major problems with this concept, and a working fleet of vehicles is still well over a decade away. In addition, hydrogen vehicles will never allow the consumer to fuel up at home—a large infrastructure of at least 20,000 to 30,000 hydrogen filling stations will be needed before these vehicles will be viable.
Meanwhile, oil companies continue to profit. Gasoline prices in the Lehigh Valley hover around $3 per gallon. In 2003, oil company profits were about $33 billion. In 2004, profits were approximately $47 billion, and in 2005, they were $64 billion.
Clearly, some people have monetary incentive to keep the status quo, no matter what the cost to the rest of us, or the planet we live on and call home.
Clean, quiet, fast (EVs can generally do 0 to 60 miles per hour in under 4 seconds), non-polluting technology that is not dependent on foreign oil exists—and was literally shredded less than five years ago. While an unjust war based on lies over oil rages in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, I cannot think of a more unwise move, nor one that was less moral.
To find out more about the rise and fall of electric vehicles, see the documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” or go to www.whokilledtheelectriccarmovie.com
Christina Georgiou is the editor of The Easton News. She is currently on extended leave due to a family emergency, but can be reached at cgeorgiou@lehighvalleynewsgroup.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
