1.Road map to better cars

2.Fuel sell

3.Whither battery cars?

4.Big bad batteries

5.Yearning for electric cars

6.A cheaper way?

Smog in Los Angeles. Still wonder why California wants clean cars?

Running on empty
If the history of fuel cells reflects the "lone-inventor-in-garage" paradigm, the story of battery-powered cars represents bureaucratic imperative driven by filthy air. Since 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB, the agency responsible for improving air quality), has been pushing the sale of "zero emissions" (translated: battery-powered) vehicles.

The move faced corporate opposition and technical problems. Under political pressure, Detroit begrudgingly made battery-powered cars that suffered from a combo of pedestrian Earthbound range and an astronomical price tag. The environmental benefits were never great enough to compel consumers to break down the doors for wheels that needed recharging after 100 miles.

Still, on Sept. 8, 2000, the agency reaffirmed its commitment to zero-emissions vehicles and claimed that its mandates had been crucial in developing cars powered by batteries, fuel cells and hybrid engines.

The latest rule says automakers must sell 22,000 no-smog vehicles per year by 2003. "It's time to get electric vehicles out of the lab, into the showroom and onto the road," Mark DeSaulnier, a member of CARB, told the Los Angeles Times (see "Firms Told to Resume... " in the bibliography).

Can't drive technology?
Critics say the agency is unwisely pushing auto manufacturers to make clean-vehicle technology that nobody wants, and that after the expenditure of billions of dollars on battery-powered cars, the cars still don't perform. In an editorial this September, the Long Beach Press-Telegram opined that "the state would get a far better return by encouraging technology that actually works," such as hybrids or fuel-cells (see "Costs of Cleaner Air... " in the bibliography).

Philosophically, critics also charge that instead of controlling air pollution, the agency is trying to "drive technology" by bureaucratic whim rather than marketplace demand. Yet government interference deserves credit for major advances in auto safety and pollution control. Without federal intervention, cars might lack these can't-live-without-'em improvements:

Front seat belts

Rear seat belts

Air bags

Vehicle impact standards

Safer dashboards

Unleaded gasoline

Better gasoline mileage

Pollution controls

The debate over mandates has recently arisen in the controversy over vehicle rollovers caused by shoddy tires on top-heavy sports-utility vehicles, which helped fuel an explosion of rollover deaths in the last seven years.

The blowout seems poised to overturn political attitudes toward regulation. As we write, Congress may reverse itself and allow the Department of Transportation to place rollover ratings on new vehicles.

The ratings should help consumers assess the likelihood of Detroit Iron going topsy-turvy in a crash.

Why the big crash of battery-driven cars?