Wired Zaps Zap
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 04. 2.08
Wired's April issue has a few nuggets of interest; in its business trends column, Gabriel Sherman notes that "while cutting energy use and rolling out earth-friendly products may attract a growing environmentally conscious customer base, corporate profits still come largely from doing business the old, dirty way," noting that while Toyota is the acknowledged innovator in fuel-efficient hybrids, it relies on conventional trucks like the Tundra for its profits. (We have got into trouble with readers saying the same thing here and here.) He also mentions that GE of Ecoimagination fame has put billions into the petroleum industry and invests in coal fired power plants.
Available online is their evisceration of ZAP for its vaporware electric cars. "If ZAP was in any other business, the company would have been dead long ago. But they keep taking advantage of how much environmentalists want to see electric cars come to market."
Randall Sullivan writes:
"Over the years, ZAP has taken millions from investors and dealers eager to see the company's line of green cars hit the road. But that line has never materialized. Of nearly a dozen groundbreaking eco-vehicles ZAP has promised in public announcements and on its Web site, only the Xebra and its sibling, a truck version, have ever made it to market. As a result, fans of electric cars have grown disillusioned, while individuals like [dealer] Youssef have been financially devastated. What's more, investment firms around the country have become cautious about financing electric vehicles after being repeatedly misled by one of the industry's most visible companies."
Read TreeHugger drinking Zap Kool-Aid: ZAP Reinvents the Wheel , Zap! and Lotus Team Up to Create the Zap-X, ZAP Shakes it Up at NADA: Dealers Place 2300 EV Orders and A Highway-Ready EV for Under $30000? Keep An Eye on the ZAP
Sometimes, not getting a product is not the result of deliberate fraud.
I get it - you'd like to see electric vehicles. These folks promised to make all sorts of sweet electrics. Not much has materialized.
They could be a lousy company. They could experience development problems. They could have supplier and reliability problems. They could have problems getting various governmental certifications. They could have insurance issues.
Long list of reasons why entry to market can be substantially delayed.
Many other companies have tried to develop and market electric vehicles. Not too many have had much in the way of success - and there are a lot of very good reasons for that. A few of them were also frauds.
Please supply facts and evidence and not simply repeat aspersions.
BTW: just because it's electric doesn't make it wonderful.
Jon said
"Sometimes, not getting a product is not the result of deliberate fraud."
Sometimes it is. This is one of those times. These guys are thieves burning investors and customers alike, making investment more difficult to find for companies that are really trying. They are actually lengthening time-to-market rather than expediting it.
They're so good at milking it, they should be in the dairy business.
One of the major problems with increasing the use of electric vehicles today is that 80% of the electricity comes from petroleum and coal fired power stations. Increasing the amount of pure electric vehicles today would make for a healthy breathing L.A. but more heavily polluted industrial areas.
Until this changes, it is more economical and environmental to extend the use of Hybrid Vehicles like the Prius, which significantly reduce the consumption of oil.
A controversial way to speed up the introduction of electric vehicles would be the significant expansion of nuclear power plants that could provide the energy needs of electric vehicles whilst solar, wind and geothermal play catch up over the next 3 decades.
There is already talk of nuclear powered T-5 tankers: http://www.trade2save.com/blog/2008/03/26/are-nuclear-powered-tankers-on-the-horizon/
Jon- did you read the article on Wired? Zap executives have a habit of making wild promises that they cant deliver(and never had any intention of) while lining their pockets. They have repeatedly put out false statements about the legiticamy of their products and the companys they do business with. They may have been started with good intentions, but thats far from the truth now.
Chris- the figures for the US put coal fired plants at about 50% of electricity production, but the grid is constantly getting greener (albeit not quick enough). In Canada, most of our electricity is via Hydro and Nuclear, so electric cars would be a huge improvment. Due to the inefficiency of the ICE, even if the grid never got any cleaner- you would still produce less greenhouse gases by switching to electric cars. Hybrids like the Prius are a valuable stepping stone towards a much greener mode of transport.
Electrical vehicles would not be an improvement in Canada as they would require the building of new generating capacity. They would likely delay the closing of coal plants because of the increased demand.
Hydrogen, electric and hybrid hybrid cars are the low tar cigarettes of the auto industry designed to delay the enviable movement away from the automobile to walking, cycling, rail and public transit.
If past experience is any indication, when the cost per km of driving becomes less expensive, as happened during the era of cheap oil and improved fuel efficiency of internal combustion engines, the result of depending on plug-in hybrids as the solution could be disastrous.
By reducing the cost per kilometre of driving, plug-in electric vehicles will likely lead to:
- People driving further
- More sprawl
- Larger vehicles
- More people driving
- More highway construction
As has happened with efficiency improvements in internal combustion engines, these factors will likely overwhelm any environmental benefits of switching to electricity.
I expect that developers of sprawling developments will even offer free plug-in hybrids as an sales incentive.
Not that electric automobiles don't have a place, but to promote them as the primary solution is not a good idea. We need to focus on creating compact walkable and bikeable communities and improving transit. Electric vehicles should only be used as a last resort for trips and uses where transit, walking and cycling won't work. We need to set a good example for people in developing countries by showing that people in developed countries are willing to choose sustainable transportation. If not, as people in developing countries switch from walking, cycling and public transit, to automobiles, their emissions will increase even if they choose electric vehicles.
No! Not an Apple logo.
Thanks Jon, for pointing out that all companies face adversity from time to time, leading to under-performance at times. Further, the Electric Vehicle has historically faced more adversity than most, so it is a wonder that ZAP has been around for as long as it has (13 years or so).
Further Wired was singing ZAP's praises not so long ago (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/12/as-tesla-dreams.html) and they have not told us what has changed between then and now to bring on this tide of vituperation.
"Further Wired was singing ZAP's praises not so long ago (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/12/as-tesla-dreams.html) and they have not told us what has changed between then and now to bring on this tide of vituperation."
anyone who has followed Zap through the years knows they have made bold promises of new vehicles and NEVER followed through with those promises.
The credibility issue is their own doing.
Promise nothing and deliver little and you're ok, promise big and fail and nobody ever believes you again.
If it wasn't for electric scooter and bike sales, would Zap still be in business?
very interesting article, and amusing illustrations as well:)
but i don't think it went far enough. the reason zap fleeced so many so easily is that theres a lack of grounded critical viewpoints within this segment of enthusiasts. just look at the who killed the electric car "documentary". it seems many are just willing to believe that the electric car was viable long ago and that only a conspiracy is keeping the technology from being viable. this makes them ripe for such operations. they do not want to acknowledge the very real technical obstacles to creating a viable electric car, and thats the problem. apparently the belief that a conspiracy is keeping the technology down is more comforting than the fact that it might not be feasible at the moment without some technical breakthroughs. belief is not enough. hating the evil corporations is easy, science is hard. i guess thats what it comes down to:P you can't skip past fundamental r&d and start buying dealerships!
the environmental movement has had the problem of the hippy influence for a long time now. you see the infection of irrational thinking when it comes to alternative medicine and most any wacky new age garbage that goes with the crowd. who needs proof when you just want good vibes:P
Havving lived in Santa Rosa and followed green transportation closely for years, I too hung my hopes on ZAP and their bold independent vision for electric cars.
I used to drive and walk by the showroom downtown. Lot's of cute electric vehicles inside... Most not even proposed ZAP products. I never a soul inside... in 2 years.
I got excited about Obvio, then ZAP X... at a recent event (the opening of a hapless ZAP dealer in Portland), the Alias was shown and no more mention of Zap X. When I asked the rep, I felt his rap about that was insincere and suspect.
The WIRED article coalesced for me what I felt was true about the company but had hoped it was the typical eco flakiness.
In response to this article Zap! claimed it was a modern-day Tucker Motors. This, of course, is ironically appropo since Tucker Motors never actually sold a production vehicle (all of them were hand-made) and evidently never even purchased the equipment necessary to manufacture cars on a large scale (despite selling "accessory kits" for them before people even got their cars). Like Zap,!, Tucker Motors was eventually embroiled in a lawsuit claiming they had manipulated stocks and had never intended to go into production.
We can rightly criticize companies like GM and Toyota for dragging their feet, or for not exploiting a market. But if GM starts taking reservations for the Chevy Volt, you know you will get the damn car you paid for. You also know that when you get a warranty for it, you won't have to haggle with GM about whether or not they have the right parts.