One scene alone in Chris Paine’s film The Revenge of the Electric Car is worth the price of Netflix rental.

The occasion is the big spring North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Paine, behind the camera, is chatting up Elon Musk, CEO of the upstart Silicon Valley electric car (EV) company Tesla Motors. Serial entrepreneur Musk has rumpled the fenders of auto industry pros by betting his entire PayPal fortune that he can beat them at their own game. 

Into his reverie wanders legendary General Motors “car guy” Bob Lutz, Detroit daddy of the Pontiac GTO, Chevy Camaro, Cadillac Escalade, and Hummer, but also the one person officially responsible for pulling the plug on GM’s innovative EV1 all-electric vehicle. The EV1’s traumatic corporate death was the subject of the filmmaker’s 2006 Who Killed the Electric Car? But in Revenge, the sequel, Lutz is one of the good guys, the film’s most unlikely hero—a man using his considerable political capital inside GM to make sure the Chevy Volt makes it into production.

Lutz’s change of heart is not because he took to heart all those “you-killed-my-grandchildren-may-you-rot-in-hell” emails he received after he killed the EV1, though the fact that he even mentions his hate mail reminds us of his humanity. No, Lutz is a good businessman, and cars are his business. He built his career on knowing what Americans want to buy before they know it themselves. It was Lutz who insisted that GM unveil the Chevy Volt at the company’s 100th anniversary party. He has risked his entire legacy at GM on the Volt, betting it will be a commercially viable plug-in electric car.

(Bob Lutz, now retired from GM, heads up VIA Motors, which manufactures a powertrain that transforms GM trucks, vans, and eventually SUVs into extended range plug-in EVs. By 2018 VIA expects to sell 50,000 of its trucks and vans for fleet use.)

Together Musk and Lutz, the vocal industry rebel and the consummate insider, glad-hand their way through the New York auto show. Suddenly they come upon the all-electric Nissan Leaf—the well-designed cool blue sedan-style EV that gets more than 100 miles per battery charge. Their virtual silence is instructive. Both are clearly impressed as they study the exhibit. This car comes from Nissan CEO and President Carlos Ghosn, who has bet that company’s fortunes (some say very existence) on electric vehicles.

But the film features one more gambler: Greg “Gadget” Abbott, a talented shade-tree mechanic determined to demonstrate how almost any car can be transformed into a plug-in EV. Abbott is the one “star” of Revenge who doesn’t have a pony in the corporate race. He has staked everything he owns on his personal plug-in electric projects—custom EV conversions including a Triumph Spitfire, a Camaro, and a Porsche. Experimenting with battery configurations, Abbott needs to build cars that consistently get 100 miles or more per electrical charge, the mileage range that meets the daily needs of most U.S. drivers. The magnitude of his personal risk is all too clear when a massive fire incinerates his cars and his uninsured tools and shop.

What is so compelling about electric cars that makes otherwise sane people risk so much on their behalf? Why do naysayers still scoff? And why should the rest of us care?

AS CALIFORNIA GOES, SO GOES THE NATION

By 2025 at least one of every seven cars sold in California will run on electricity—just one goal of new policies adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) but a powerful national and international boost for electrical vehicle manufacturers.

In Chris Paine’s Who Killed the Electric Car? the California Air Resources Board (CARB) was portrayed as one of the bad guys—accused of gutting its own early zero emission vehicle (ZEV) standards at the behest of the auto industry and the hydrogen fuel cell lobby. (See last issue’s Who Killed the Early EVs?for a political recap.) But CARB was wearing a white hat again by January 2012 when The Bay Citizen and other media announced California’s new vehicle emission standards.

Starting with the 2017 model year California’s Advanced Clean Cars program begins to go into effect, gradually increasing the number of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) of all stripes and phasing-in other emission standards. When the rules are fully implemented in 2025 all new cars in California will emit one-third fewer global warming gases than they do now and 75 percent fewer smog-supporting emissions. Consumer fuel savings are expected to average $6,000 over a vehicle’s lifetime—more than offsetting the projected average car price increase of $1,900. These calculations, however, were made long before gas prices started to take a dive in late 2014.

Like so many car standards adopted by California—which, by virtue of its huge population, can essentially dictate terms to the auto industry—many other states will probably also adopt these stricter standards.

WHY DOUBTERS STILL DOUBT

Change is hard. Most of us don’t like it, and go to great lengths to keep things just as they are for as long as possible.

Concern about how easily and quickly you can recharge a plug-in electric vehicle turns out to be one key reservation. Sure, with most EVs it’s easy to plug in at home—with most cars you can use a standard outlet, though there are faster charging 240-volt options too—but what about while at work, darting around town, and heading out on the open road? Commercial and public charging stations are on the way but aren’t widely available just yet.

The high cost of electric car batteries is another worry. Overall out-of-pocket cost is another major issue keeping electric vehicles out of the auto industry mainstream, the high sticker price largely due to steep battery costs. The federal EV tax credit is an appealing incentive for taxpayers who expect to owe at least $7,500 in taxes in a given year—at least until 200,000 vehicles of any given model are sold—but doesn’t help those with modest incomes, or who opt to lease. California EV buyers are eligible for state tax rebates of up to $2,500for most EVs, and up to $5,000 for hydrogen-fuel-cell cars.

Battery quality is also a concern—as well as battery range, or how far you can drive a plug-in before needing a recharge, the power equivalent of filling a gas tank—though advances in battery design and technology are coming so fast, and on so many fronts, that it’s almost impossible to keep up. Various industry insiders are strongly hinting these days thataffordable vehicles with EV ranges of 250 miles and more are coming, and very soon. Breakthroughs in EV battery technology are happening on many fronts. Battery University offers a useful historical overview of EV batteries.

Then there’s EV auto battery safety, a concern with lithium-ion batteries loudly pondered by U.S. media in 2011 after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s investigation into post-test-crash electrical fires in Chevrolet Volt. Joann Muller reported on Forbes.com in January 2012 that the Volt’sEV batteries are safe. The worry surfaced again following fires with Tesla’s Model S sedan, resulting in undercarriage safety modifications but pointing to the need for more and better battery options.

WHAT’S RIGHT WITH ELECTRIC CARS

People who love plug-in electric cars are passionate about them and their prospects for saving us from our excesses. The actor Danny DeVito shares this absolute enthusiasm. “First of all,” he says of his EV1, “it was the coolest car I ever had.”

Early in Revenge of the Electric Car DeVito describes his grief when General Motors took away his EV1. He and others drove the experimental cars to assist with their ongoing evaluation, but GM still owned them all. DeVito was crushed when the confiscated EV1s were literally crushed, and electric vehicles in general were left for dead.

Interest in EVs is clearly increasing, that fact being the occasion for Revenge of the Electric Car. At film’s end DeVito takes the new Chevy Volt for a test drive. The Volt doesn’t disappoint. DeVito is sold: “That’s the most solid Chevy I ever drove in my life, seriously!” But his decade-old disappointment is still alive. “You’re not going to take this one away from me, are you?” he asks his driving companion, a GM employee.

The Chevy Volt and similar cars may be the ideal plug-ins for people who are sure they won’t like EVs. The Volt’s appeal comes partly from the fact that it’s not really a plug-in electric. As even GM explains it’s actually an “extended range” gas-electric hybrid. The Volt has a plug-in electric battery that can go 25 to 50 miles (the distance depending on driving conditions) before it needs recharging. But because it’s also a hybrid, if you keep driving instead of stopping to recharge, the gas-powered engine automatically kicks in to power the battery—and car—for up to 300 miles. The new Prius Plug-in is similar, though the range is much lower. In short, Volt and Prius Plug-In drivers never need to worry about how near or far an electrical outlet may be.

By definition true electric cars are powered by electric motors instead of gas engines, as HybridCars.com explains. An electric vehicle’s power is regulated by its onboard controller, which is in turn controlled by the car’s accelerator pedal. The considerable energy needed to propel EVs is stored inside powerful rechargeable batteries—now most commonly lithium-ion batteries similar to those used in laptop computers and cell phones—which are replenished with electricity.

The benefits of plug-in electric cars are fairly obvious. They reduce our national dependency on oil, because they don’t need gasoline or oil to run. Without internal combustion engines EVs don’t produce tailpipe pollutants, although, unless an EV is recharged from solar panels or other clean energy source, their emissions are essentially moved “upstream” to a utility company’s power generation site. But because they are so efficient, even when powered by “dirty” electricity—visualize dark clouds emerging from a coal-fired power-plant smokestack—EVs help reduce the vehicular carbon footprint. And as the electrical grid gets “cleaner,” producing power from solar, wind, and cleaner, greener sources, electric cars get greener too.

With a plug-in electrical vehicle you’ll never (or rarely, in the case of the Volt and other plug-in hybrids) need to go to a gas station to fuel up. Just plug your car in when you get home, and/or when you get to work. The per-mile energy savings is substantial. And if you recharge your vehicle at night, during off-peak hours when energy rates are lowest, you can drop your fuel-equivalent cost even more.

Of course in the longer term, as oil supplies diminish and prices shoot up, plug-in EVs will be more affordable than gas-powered cars. Some observers say we are almost at that tipping point already, once you factor in the savings from low EV maintenance costs. With no moving engine parts to replace and no need for oil changes or emission checks, EVs need very little care. Plus they are fast and very fun to drive, with amazing zero-to-60 mph acceleration.

AN ABUNDANCE OF CHOICE

Suddenly there are plenty of electric cars to choose from, with almost two dozen available models and dozens more in the works. See Plug in America.com, HybridCars.com, andPlugInCars.com to see what’s coming and what’s already available, from the affordable, immensely popular Nissan Leafsedan to the pricey Bay Area-based Tesla Roadster, now surpassed by the company’s Maserati-style Model S sedan(Motor Trend’s 2013 Car of the Year) and Model X SUV (still on the way). The Toyota Prius Plug-In has arrived, however, and has been selling fairly well despite the fact that its all-electric range is disappointing—testament, perhaps, to the power of slow but steady brand-building.

Just this month (January of 2015) GM unveiled its very stylish, second-generation 2016 Chevy Volt, expected to go at least 50 miles on a single battery charge and, when regularly charged, more than 1,000 miles between fill-ups. Coming soon is the Chevy Bolt, still a concept car, but expected to become an affordable EV ($30,000) cruising more than 200 miles on a single charge.

Lesser known options include mainstream newcomers such as the new Ford Focus EV, the plug-in Ford Fusion Energi, and the all-electric Chevy Spark EV city car. And could there be anything cuter than the Kia Soul EV? (Well, maybe the Fiat 500e, which looks something like a plump bumper-toed tennis shoe.) And yes, plug-in SUVs are here too, or almost, starting with the seven-passenger Volvo XC90 plug-in hybrid SUV(expected later this spring, with an all-electric version due in 2017) and then followed most likely by Mitsubishi, Tesla, and the Ford Escape.

At the high end there are some contenders aside from Tesla, including an all-electric Beemer, the BMW i3, good for 80 miles between charges, and the seriously pricey Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid, which can go all electric, all gas, or both in combo.

China may yet become a plug-in-electric contender. Savvy investor Warren Buffet is betting that China’s BYD (“Build Your Dreams”) e6 crossover wagon, with a reported range of 200 to 250 miles and a top speed of 100 mph, may be the EV that makes them mainstream. According to the company you can plug the e6 into a standard 110-volt household outlet for 10 minutes and charge the batteries to 50 percent capacity, or 15 minutes to reach an 80-percent charge. So far, however, even with an army of engineers BYD hasn’t delivered on its impressive promises.

Despite doubts and naysaying about electric cars, many in the industry believe that their time has come. As one commentator observes in Revenge of the Electric Car, all that’s needed for the success of electric vehicles is time—time for the price of gas to continue climbing and the cost of vehicle batteries to keep dropping, changes that improve cost-benefit calculations.

Time may also change most people’s personal perspectives on cars. After all, in a world increasingly concerned about the effects of climate change, a plug-in EV is the only car that gets “cleaner” the longer you own it, given the expectation that over time the power grid will rely more on renewable energy sources.

The story began in California, where in 1995—inspired by news of General Motors’ groundbreaking EV1 prototype—the California Air Resources Board (CARB) created the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. The regulation required that 2 percent of automakers’ new California cars and light duty trucks be ZEVs by 1998, 5 percent by 2001, and 10 percent by 2003. The idea was that we’d all breathe easier as a direct result, not to mention start saving big time on fuel costs.

The American Automobile Manufacturing Association began a campaign to repeal the CARB ZEV mandate almost immediately, and in 1996 succeeded in softening the earlier deadlines, though the 10 percent mandate for 2003 stuck.

In 1999, General Motors’ EV1 cars were unveiled, available to consumers by lease only. Enthusiastic demand far exceeded supply. But by 2001, GM began laying off its sales team—starting with its most successful sales people—and also shifted production at its Lansing, Michigan plant from EVs to gas-powered cars.

In 2002, GM, Daimler Chrysler, and seven California car dealerships sued the CARB, demanding a repeal of ZEV requirements. During George W. Bush’s first term the U.S. Department of Justice filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of the automakers, arguing that California’s ZEV mandate amounted to an attempt to regulate fuel economy, which it contended was solely the federal government’s prerogative. Also in 2002, Alan C. Lloyd, chair of the California Air Resources Board, was named chair of the California Fuel Cell Partnership, a public-private organization that promotes hydrogen fuel cell vehicle technology.

In his 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush called for hydrogen fuel cell development—rather than continuing the successful electric vehicle experiment—to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Citing poor sales, Toyota announced it would discontinue production of the RAV4 EV. (See last week’s Is It Time (Yet) for Electric Cars?) Also in 2003, Alan Lloyd directed decisive CARB votes that effectively gutted California’s EV mandate—votes that led to the literal demise of the state’s fleet of electrical vehicles.

Who Killed the Electric Car? turned out to be just like one of those Agatha Christie mysteries where multiple villains join forces to do the dastardly deed, making it difficult to assign ultimate blame. The film itself weighed the evidence and passed these final judgments about who killed the first round of America’s 21st-century electric cars:.

EV BATTERIES: NOT GUILTY

Batteries for EVs were never the problem, according to Paine’s film. Even early underperforming lead-acid batteries for GM’s EV1 powered the car for 60 to 80 miles per charge, more than adequate for most Americans’ driving needs. The nickel metal hydride battery developed by Stanford R. Ovshinsky’s Ovonics company expanded EV range to 120 miles. The newer Lithium-ion batteries offer extended range—250 to 300 miles—and twice the energy efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells.

THE OIL COMPANIES: GUILTY

Big oil fought California’s original electric car mandate every step of the way. (There’s a new California mandate, passed earlier this year. For details, see Part 2.) Electric vehicles posed little immediate threat, but that might have changed. As world demand increases for transportation fuel—still mostly oil, at this point—a lack of viable alternatives and market competition increase oil company prices and profits.

THE CAR COMPANIES: GUILTY

In response to California’s ZEV mandate, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota all developed EV programs—and most ended up undermining their own EV success. The film argues that electric cars directly threatened the gas-powered auto industry—by creating competition for more conventional cars, yes, but also by undermining overall industry profitability. Without an engine, EVs save consumers the costs of replacement parts, motor oil, filters and spark plugs. Regenerative braking systems, in which a car’s electronics do much of the work of slowing it down, also save wear and tear on mechanical brakes. Electric vehicles may be a boon for society and for consumers, but threaten corporate profits.

THE FEDS: GUILTY

From Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the OPEC oil embargo until Barack Obama was elected, vehicle fuel efficiency wasn’t a federal priority. Given the Bush administration’s ties to the oil and auto industries, the film viewed its antagonism to the electric vehicle as unsurprising. With the public increasingly alarmed over the Iraq war and the unstable price of oil, eventually the Bush administration signaled an about-face, though ultimately not much changed.

THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD: GUILTY

The California Air Resources Board supported the development of EVs but failed to achieve success for its ZEV initiative. The film finds Board Chair Alan C. Lloyd particularly culpable, since his policy decisions ultimately directed the board’s decisions.

THE HYDROGEN FUEL CELL: GUILTY

California’s ZEV mandate was abandoned in favor of a new zero emission vehicle technology, the hydrogen fuel cell, which is far from being a proven technology. Even supporters agree that a practical hydrogen-fueled is decades away. And at this point, most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. But even if hydrogen can be made from renewable electricity, it would still be delivered as a fuel—instead of via the existing electric power grid—and could be developed as a profitable product controlled by the oil companies.

CONSUMERS: PARTIALLY GUILTY

The people who actually drove early EVs loved them, but most consumers failed to embrace them due to the love affair between cheap gas and big SUVs. Public opinion was shaped in part by automakers and the media, of course.  Both downplayed the possibility that EVs could be a practical alternative to gas-powered cars.

It’s early autumn in Chico, a breezy blur of green lawns, brassy leaves, and cool blue sky. Alldrin is at the wheel of his all-electric 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV and we’re joyriding down West Lindo. He taps the “gas” and the silver Toyota zips down an open stretch. Alldrin backs off and the car whispers around the tight turns, as stealthy, sure, and silent as a cat.

The low hum of rubber on road is the only sound the car makes—because there is no engine, only a controller (“the silver black box”) and big-time nickel metal hydride batteries for storing electricity that are tucked away in the chassis. There are virtually no moving parts, other than wheels, windshield wipers, and brakes. Aside from occasionally checking wiper and brake fluid, the owner’s manual recommends rotating the tires every 6,000 miles. Maintaining a vehicle doesn’t get much simpler than that. As for the batteries, they’re designed to last 150,000 to 200,000 miles, in many cases the entire life of the car.

It makes sense that Chuck Alldrin would end up owning a total of five electric vehicles, or EVs, including the Chevy Volt he bought several years ago. (His first electric car, no longer in the family, was an antique Fiat 600 he converted to electricity himself and kept running until he could no longer find basic parts.) Given his forward-looking tendencies, his wife Peggy often says he was born 20 years ahead of his time. Depending on how you count, though, Chuck Alldrin may actually have been born about 50 years too soon. Not that he’s complaining either way.

“I’m always thinking outside the box,” he says. “The worst thing you can say to me is ‘You can’t do that.’ There are so many ways of doing things. And it’s rewarding to see so many of the things I’ve done now starting to become mainstream.”

Educated in aeronautics and electronics, Alldrin has worked variously as a commercial pilot, flight instructor, airline mechanic, and crop duster. In the 1960s and 1970s alternative energy in all its forms captured his imagination, which led Alldrin, now semi-retired, to establish his own solar installation business, Energy Alternatives.

Chuck Alldrin’s home and workshop are solar-powered, of course, and he also powers his electric cars from the sun’s energy. “With electric cars, you can actually make your own fuel,” he points out. “You just can’t do that with gas-powered cars.”

THE MIRACLE OF ELECTRIC CARS

Alldrin is happy to share his enthusiasm for what he considers intelligent technology. When the documentary film Who Killed the Electric Car? was screened at the Pageant Theatre in Chico some years ago, Alldrin and his friend Tom Dowling of Folsom parked their Toyota RAV4 EVs out front to demonstrate first-hand the simple genius of EVs, the cars the oil companies and automakers didn’t want Americans to have.

Carmakers, oil companies, and even politicians are changing their tune when it comes to electric vehicles, but things were quite different even a few years ago, when Who Killed the Electric Car? debuted.

That EVs even exist in America is almost a miracle, the film points out, because General Motors and other car companies made a concerted effort to destroy them, and to quash public demand for viable technologies. (See Who Killed the Early EVs?next week, for some of the shocking details.) With the end of the oil economy clearly coming fast (though not as fast as predicted even a few years ago) proponents of electric cars point out that the essential infrastructure they require—roads, highways, and the electric power grid—already exist. Yet until quite recently the political winds were pushing hydrogen-powered vehicles, which are considerably less fuel efficient and assume hydrogen generating and storage technologies that don’t yet exist.

All things considered, it’s also something of a miracle that Chuck Alldrin has his Toyota RAV4 EV.

In 2002, after General Motors recalled all of its leased EV1 electric vehicle prototypes and crushed them, Alldrin and other members of the Electric Auto Association heard through the electric-vehicle grapevine that Toyota was willing to sell some of its electric RAV4s, also previously made available to the public only by lease.

In November 2002 Alldrin test-drove a dealer demo in Davis with just 104 miles on it. As a used car it was priced at $43,000 ($33,000 after rebate), and he debated whether to buy it or wait for the 2003 model. In the end he decided “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” and bought the 2002 model.

That turned out to be a smart move. Just three weeks later, Toyota announced its decision to stop producing the electric car altogether. Only 340 all-electric RAV4 EVs are privately owned today, and one of them is Chuck Alldrin’s.

CHARGE ME UP

Before he bought his Chevy Volt, Chuck Alldrin didn’t hesitate to tell you that the all-electric RAV4 was the best car he’s ever owned. It’s powerful, reliable, energy efficient, virtually nonpolluting, and has a range of about 120 miles before it needs to be recharged, though over time that distance does slowly decline as the battery ages. As for “fuel” costs, it’s about $2 to $4 to recharge a fully electric vehicle by plugging it into one’s own garage or house overnight, which works out to about 3 or 4 cents per mile.

Electric vehicle owners can’t “fuel up” just anywhere, obviously, so at this point taking a trip out of town does take some strategic planning—pulling out maps and plotting routes that include preferred charging stations. (In a pinch, just about any RV park will do.) The Electric Auto Association, of which Alldrin is a proud member, has compiled a comprehensive list of favored charging stops throughout the country, and works to regularly expand the electric car infrastructure in the U.S.

“Every trip is an adventure,” Alldrin says—not because it’s difficult, inconvenient, or expensive to charge one’s car, but because factoring charge time into travel plans creates opportunities to explore new communities and attractions. “Like the olden days,” Alldrin points out, “traveling more slowly means you have to stop and smell the roses.”

The new Chevy Volt, though, is a game-changer for Alldrin. A plug-in hybrid with a strictly-electric range of 40 or more miles, the Volt also has a gas-powered engine that fires up to recharge the batteries when needed—extending the car’s range to 300 miles or so, making it a very convenient vehicle for long trips as well as short ones.

GO OUT AND MAKE ONE OF YOUR OWN?

Back in the day, before the Boomers got so gray and geezerly, 1960s’ media icon Scoop Nisker used to tell ’em—and sometimes still does, on the Bay Area’s KFOG Morning Show Occasional Scoop radio program—and I quote: “If you don’t like the news, go out and make some of your own.”

Maybe it’s time to take some inspiration from Scoop. If you don’t like the cars the big auto companies are offering these days, go out and make some of your own.

Converting a small car or truck from gas to electric power is not that simple, though. It takes some mechanical ability, quite a bit of time and money to boot—probably about $7,000 to $10,000, according to Chuck Alldrin. And he should know. Alldrin has done a number of EV conversions, including a Chevy S-10 truck.

For starters, you’ll need a suitable “donor vehicle,” something reasonably small and light with a sound body and running system. A small or mid-sized car is ideal—the Volkswagen Rabbit has been particularly popular for conversions—or a small pickup.

“You definitely don’t want a junker, or an old car,” Alldrin says, “because you’ll want to be able to get basic parts for many years to come. It’s like a heart transplant. It won’t be worth doing if the body’s falling apart.”

Generally speaking, most conversion cars don’t have the range of manufactured electric vehicles (EVs), averaging 40 to 50 miles between charges. But they have the other advantages of larger commercial EVs, easily reaching speeds of 60 to 70 miles per hour and costing 3 or 4 cents per mile to operate. They’re also pollution free and almost maintenance free.

The batteries—an array of standard golf cart batteries, easily available, is cheapest—need to be replaced every 15,000 to 30,000 miles. Because most people primarily drive their EVs around town, just 5,000 or 6,000 miles per year, that means batteries will last three to five years.

But you can also use state-of-the-art lithium-ion phosphate batteries like Jack Rickard and Brian Noto of webcast EVTV in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Every Friday these two boys with big-boy toys—dig that 1957 Porsche Speedster!—offer detailed hands-on instruction on some of the fine points of EV conversion. Check out the complete EVTV how-to video archive.

Another approach, much simpler—and fairly inexpensive if you already have a Toyota Prius hybrid—is converting it to a plug-in EV hybrid with the help of a kit, which will cost you somewhere between $2,000 and $3,500. (If you don’t already have a Prius you can now buy a plug-in version.) The helpful Electric Auto Association offers more info about this and other timely topics.

So if you don’t like your gas-powered car, go out and make it into an EV—and also make some of your own energy independence.

“Conversion cars are like my RAV4,” Alldrin says. “You just plug them into your house and charge them up overnight. They’ll never see a gas station.”

It was a natural step for Andrew Heben, the transition from the Occupy movement into creating collaborative housing for homeless and low-income populations. He became aware of the need for more and better housing options for the homeless during his Occupy days, in fact, as they drifted into encampments seeking safety and shelter.

An urban planning student at the time, he was taught to “value the input of the people you’re planning for.” So for his senior thesis in urban planning he set out to find out just what the homeless want in the way of housing, by visiting tent-city encampments across the country.

“What I found is that these camps are a lot more organized than they are portrayed in the news media,” Eben recently told a group of nearly 100 gathered at Bidwell Presbyterian Church several weeks ago to hear his thoughts on alternative housing options for the homeless.

Author of the book Tent City Urbanism: From Self-Organized Camps to Tiny House Villages, Eben discovered “sustainable dynamics” in the camps he visited—direct democracy, economic self-management, mutual aid, and resourcefulness among them. So the question for Eben became: How can those dynamics be preserved while infrastructure, the physical housing situation, is improved?

He pointed to three models that “bridge the gap between the street and stable, sustainable housing.” The sanctuary camp allows people to camp in safe, sanitary conditions rather than environmentally sensitive forests and wetlands, much like Occupy camps established around the country. A transition village offers very basic tiny house shelters for temporary stays, often with separate, shared social space and cooking and bathroom facilities. An affordable micro-housing village offers “more robust” tiny housing, often self-contained homes with small kitchens that provide permanence–“sustainable places to transition to,” as Eben put it—for very low-income residents.

Opportunity Village in Eugene, Oregon, the transition village that Eben co-founded, grew out of Occupy Eugene. The village occupies a one-time trailer park site and includes 30 very tiny houses—a mix of Conestoga huts and “bungalows” just 60 to 80 square feet in size, providing little more than sleeping space. A 30-foot yurt heated in winter by a pellet stove serves as a community center and meeting space. Nearby are shared kitchen, restroom, and shower facilities.

“The first day we had access to the site we built five structures,” he said. The tiny-house bungalows go together quickly thanks to modular panelization construction techniques “that return the home-building process to the people, similar to an old-fashioned barn-raising.”

“The people” are critical to village success, which by design requires citizen-residents to participate in decision-making.

According to Eben, the “capital costs” for Opportunity Village—all from private donations—have $98,475, or $3,395 per housing unit. Monthly operating costs average about $2,422, or $839.50 per person annually.

That compares to societal costs of $20,000 to $25,000 per person annually, he said, when people are living on the streets.

Most significantly, though, when Opportunity Village supporters approached the Eugene City Council for an extension of their use permit, “no one came forward to speak against it.”

Yet Opportunity Village isn’t “the answer” for homelessness. It serves only single adults and couples, and isn’t designed to accommodate the needs of families and children. People who are unable to follow the community’s rules—including the ban against alcohol and drugs onsite—also can’t be accommodated, which means “the worse-off folks” are still unhoused.

The community does offer an affordable housing option for many people who aren’t well-served by homeless shelters.

Next up for Eben is Eugene’s new Emerald Village project, “a grassroots model for long-term, ultra-affordable housing” that provides more permanence—and a tiny-housing community that’s also self-sustaining and free of government subsidy. It’s intended as a longer term, sustainable micro-housing community.

The tiny houses will be roughly twice as big, at 120 to 150 square feet, with a kitchenette, heat, and electrical hook-ups. Similar to Opportunity Village, tiny houses will be supported by common gathering, kitchen, and restroom facilities.

Emerald Village residents will be expected to make monthly payments of $150 to $200 toward the value of their tiny house—yet this “rent” helps them build an asset for the future. If a resident decides to leave the village, he ort she will be able to “sell” that accrued equity back to the community nonprofit—which makes this an excellent way to save money for standard rental deposits and/or first and last month’s rent.

Among other micro-housing projects Eben mentioned was Occupy Madison’s OM Village, whose motto is “ending homelessness one tiny house at a time.” In November of 2014 OM finally received its Madison, Wisconsin use permit, which allows dwellings on the East Johnson Street village site to be occupied. Three tiny OM houses have been finished so far, with six more scheduled for completion by spring 2015.

More ambitious still is Community First! Village in Austin, Texas, an in-progress, 225-unit micro-housing development where residents will pay $100 to $300 per month to live. Sponsored by Mobile Loves & Fishes (“Miracles on Wheels”), the program’s mission is positively biblical—literally, as in Genesis 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and settled him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and take care of it.”

“Houses” at Community First! include fully self-contained fifth-wheel RV trailers, micro-houses with shared bathrooms and kitchens, and canvas-sided tent cottages.

Thinking about starting a tiny house village in your town? Here’s the roadmap. Find the map and more nuts-and-bolt resources from other folks who are doing it at the Village Collaborative.

Many tiny houses are built for complete mobility, making it quick and easy to move house. Photo by Tammy Strobel/ CC BY 2.0.

Once Jay Shafer gets done explaining the virtues of tiny houses, you feel embarrassed living anyplace larger than, say, an obscenely spacious 500 square feet. 

A key reason to live small – or at least much, much smaller – is that it represents the biggest step most people can take to minimize their environmental impact and live more sustainable lives.

“The average American house consumes about three quarters of an acre of forest and produces about seven tons of construction waste,” says Shafer. “It emits 18 tons of greenhouse gases annually, and, at more than 2,349 square feet, it would most definitely not fit into a single parking space.” 

Yes, parking space. Many of the charming natural wood hand-built homes Shafer designs and builds also have wheels – a practical fact that makes pulling up stakes quick, quite simple, and almost literal.

Shafer’s first three Tumbleweed tiny houses totaled just 70 to 89 square feet in size, and each easily fit into one parking space. The symbolism is particularly attention grabbing, given that the average U.S. home emits more greenhouse gases in a year than a car.

The largest two of the early Tumbleweeds consumed only about 4,800 pounds of building materials each. During construction each generated fewer than 100 pounds of landfill waste – 140 times less than most homes. Even with the need to overcome typical Iowa winters, Shafer says, each of those tiny houses generated only 900 pounds of greenhouse gases annually. He describes the evolution of his concepts of quality tiny house construction in his new The Small House Book, available only on the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company website.

In An Era of Tight Budgets and Other Limits, Small Looks More and More Beautiful 

Money – the desire to spend much less of it on housing – is another founding principle of the tiny-house movement. Owning your own home yet being able to live free of banks and mortgage payments is clearly a plus in such tight-fisted times. Young people who can’t yet manage buying a house can still “own,” plus move that home around as needed to follow job opportunities. Oldsters who have taken a bath in the national housing disaster or are otherwise underwater can start showering in their own tiny house.

The average American home consumes three-quarters of an acre of forest, whereas tiny houses use few resources. Photo by Tammy Strobel/ CC BY 2.0.

The desire to enjoy quality hand-built housing is another factor. Travel trailers, mobile homes, and various pre-fabricated options can supply mobility or relative low cost but generally don’t offer all-natural materials, quality workmanship, and truly homey ambience.

Now married and a new father, Shafer and his family recently settled into a hand-built 500-square-foot home – one with room for family, friends, and just enough stuff for a comfortable, semi-minimalist life.

One secret to successfully living small is exceptionally well-designed space that provides everything you need (but nothing more). Part of that good design is making sure that most floor space is used for multiple purposes – a sleeping loft located above the tiny kitchen and bathroom, say, or a pull-down Murphy bed that tucks away in a “great room” cabinet during the day.

Keeping life simple and serene is the main reason for living tiny. Rather than spending free time and resources improving and maintaining a large home and yard, you can spend it pursuing cultural and outdoor interests.

As Shafer puts it, superfluous living space “gets in the way of contentment.” In a tiny house everything is within arm’s reach and nothing gets in the way of the life you want to live, “not even space itself.”

Living Large By Living Tiny

The time for even the most eccentric idea has arrived once it shows up in the pages of The New Yorker. And so it is for the tiny-house movement and its most notable celeb, Jay Shafer, featured in Alec Wilkinson’s July 25, 2011 article, “Let’s Get Small.”

But it’s not as if we haven’t been tiptoeing up to this idea for quite some time. Not long ago architect Sarah Susanka dazzled the housing design scene with her best-selling book The Not So Big House and its sequels, thoughtful work that demonstrates how well-planned smaller spaces create more intimacy and efficiency. And how many books about scaling-down, downsizing, and de-cluttering have made it to market in recent years?

What’s very different about the tiny-house movement is just how much the push for a new perspective comes from people at large – just plain folks – and not so much the professionals. The same is true about much of the innovation, too. Jay Shafer is tiny-house star, to be sure, in part to introduce and promote his own line of houses, DIY construction plans, and workshops. But he is the exception. The general rule is populism, people’s own hand-built homes and the creative companies that grow out of related innovations.

To experience this personally head on over to the The Tiny House Blog, which explores every imaginable approach to “Living Simply in Small Spaces.” The Tiny House Blog touches on it all, from young couples who get their start as homesteaders by remodeling chicken coops and grain silos to entire communities in rural England and elsewhere who are returning to the past and traditional low-impact construction techniques to create a more sustainable future.

Innovations may target particular challenges, such as garden sheds fashioned into well-built historically suitable backyard guest cottages, in-law units, and tiny primary residences so retirees can rent out the “big house” to generate extra income. Sometimes the tiny-house adventure continues over many years as several generations hand-build a shared getaway. Some tiny houses are boats, or are built on floating lakeshore docks. And some are becoming safe harbors for people who have lost, or will lose, their homes as part of the ongoing U.S. housing market meltdown.

Beyond the need for suitable and safe domestic housing, the tiny-house movement has broader moral motivations. Ingeniously designed tiny houses made of inexpensive and abundant local materials could house the world’s 2.5 billion poor people. The $300 House Project, for example, started out as blog post for the Harvard Business Review by Vijay Govindarajan and Christian Sarkar but has become a movement of its own that is now attracting powerful partners from the worlds of education and business.

Some tiny-house innovators showcased in The Tiny House Blog are working on more individualistic solutions to the same problem, such as designing mobile microhomes on wheels that are light enough to push around like shopping carts. One vendor cart-style design provides a business platform by day and safety and security at night.

Conspicuous overconsumption is not OK to tiny housers. Photo by Ken Down/ CC BY-NC 2.0.

Living tiny does not necessarily mean living tony, though some tiny houses are very upscale – including small guesthouse adjuncts to monster mansions.

That, however, is the least acceptable use among the many options embraced by the tiny-house community. Conspicuous over-consumption is just not OK, even if that consumption is “green.”

“Under no circumstances does a 3,000-square foot house for two qualify as ‘green,’ says Jay Shafer. “All the solar gain and reclaimed materials in the world can never change that.”

American homes are the world’s largest, he says, four times the international average. Large even in 1950, since then median home size has more than doubled while the number of people per household dropped more than 25 percent. Our houses now have entertainment suites, more bathrooms, more bedrooms, two- or three-car garages, and all the requisite stuff to fill them. Few of us ask whether we truly need, want, or will even use the heavy load of material goods we carry through life. Fewer still stop to ask whether “bigger” and “more” lead to human happiness.

Jay Shafer, however, is certain that extravagance and excess have no redeeming social value. Further, they block the road to a more sustainable future. Accountable consumption is a big part of the solution to many problems now facing the world.

“If you do only one thing to make your new home more environmentally sound,” he says, “make it small.”