Despite this 100 years ago there were more Electric cars on the road than petrol cars.
The Detroit Automobile Co., Ford's first company, failed, without producing any cars, and Henry Ford was ousted by angry investors.
The reason we drive petrol cars today is because of a commercial decision of Henry Ford, supported by Edison, J.P. Morgan, and especially John Davison Rockefeller. These three persuaded him to abandon the electric car and to continue with his petrol engine while Rockefeller sought to obtain a worldwide monopoly on the use of petroleum.
This is not the only example of this group suppressing superior technology in favour of higher profits; J. P. Morgan and Rockefeller controlled companies like Thomson-Houston and Edison General Electric who became the General Electric Co. tried in the late 1890's to take over Westinghouse a contemporary power generating company and force them to abandon their Alternating Current[AC] power systems to protect their far less efficient and more expensive Direct Current[DC] systems.
What about the electric car?
"They are more efficient than [petrol] cars and don't rely on [petrol]. More efficient means less energy consumed and less pollution.
According to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 2005 was the hottest year recorded in over a century.
A recent EPA study showed that Los Angeles has the second highest cancer risk in the [US] due to air toxins and hazardous chemicals like benzene, which is emitted primarily from vehicles. Electric cars are also free from many of the maintenance costs. oil changes and fuel filters of standard internal-combustion engines.
No [petrol] means Less dependence on foreign oil sources. We are mired in an increasingly costly and unpopular war in the Middle East.
We believe that giving consumers an opportunity to own or Lease electric cars again would be a step towards doing something about global warming, about pollution, and about our dependency on oil...
Who keeps killing the electric car?
This is a controversial question, What do you think?
Would you give up a $100 Trillion oil revenue just because you 'might' save the planet??
Don't forget the $100 Trillion plus automobile support industries [brake pads to air fresheners]
"In Late 2000, right around the time GM started pulling the plug on its electric car program, GM sold to Texaco Inc. its 60% share in GM-Ovonic, a partnership between GM and the Ovonic Battery Company, which developed the nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH] battery that was used in the second- generation EVI. [15] If the oil industry was so sceptical about the feasibility of battery-powered electric cars, or if they didn't really think these cars were a threat, why buy its underlying technology? In 2001, Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. sued Matsushita Battery Industrial Co., Panasonic EV Energy Co. and the Toyota Motor Corporation for alleged patent infringement of NiMH battery technology developed by its subsidiary, Ovonic Battery Company.[16] The case was settled in 2004, with no party admitting liability, and the terms of the settlement were kept confidential." - http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
My real question is why don't the leaders of these uber-companies recognise that the future technology they 'believe' will resolve our current crisis could just as easily be the technology that replaces their £100 Trillion petroleum cash cow with a £200 Trillion 'New Thing to make Money'???
