The pot and the kettle
I'm not convinced the author himself is impartial. At all. If you'll google him, you'll find out that he is well known for his anti-environmentalist opinions, is pro GM-food, etc.
He writes in a different article "Environmentalists instinctively reject or ignore technological solutions to global warming because they are bent on making people atone for their sins." and "They are resistant to geo-engineering solutions because putting an end to climate change would rob them of their raison d’être." What a load of crock!
Source: href="http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3950/
He's associated with an anti-environmentalist group:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Woods
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=LM_group
This paragraph could have been interesting:
"The brilliant bespectacled battery engineer Alan Cocconi, who is featured in the film, has come up with a lithium ion battery that appears to store 463 kiloJoules of energy per kilo - an energy density better than nickel metal hydride batteries (250 kJ/kg) can ever hope for, but still 100 times behind that of petrol (44,400 kJ/kg). Perhaps battery researchers at Stanford University will get the difference in energy densities down from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1; but the fact is that oil-based fuel has more than profitability going for it."
But this is about energy storage, he doesn't mention how much energy is needed to power a combustion engine vs an electrical engine...
If you look at the complete picture, hydrogen is seriously less efficient than a battery:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png/753px-Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png
Consult Wikipedia for a more balanced review of the movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
