Here’s an excerpt from my interview with Robertson:

How did the project with Ford come about?
We’ve been working on hybrids and electric vehicles for years, and we’ve been in constant dialogue with Ford on our developments for the last one or two years. When we developed this particular vehicle, Ford was very interested. We had electric vehicles 10 or 15 years ago at Magna. The big difference now is that technology continues to progress, and we’ve got viable technologies—new motor technologies, software and hardware, and high energy density lithium-ion batteries. And it takes all three of those technologies to come together [to have a viable electric vehicle].

Why didn’t the older electric vehicle models take off?
They were demonstration vehicles. They were using lead-acid batteries or sodium sulphur batteries. It all goes back to how much energy you can contain on board. You need a high energy density so that you don’t have a lot of mass but still get sufficient range. Here you didn’t have very much range, not enough to take you on daily commutes.

What’s the big deal about lithium-ion batteries?
There’s a very famous study that everyone’s quoting that says if you take a look at the average usage of vehicles, 80% of the population goes fewer than 38 miles a day. And so you can satisfy 80% of the population with a vehicle with a 40- to 50-mile range. Lead acid batteries don’t have the range that would give people enough confidence. That’s why you need a higher energy density battery, and the lithium-ion does that.

Is lithium-ion going to be the standard?
You can’t lock in and say that’s the ultimate. Development is going to continue with the batteries. We’re seeing the chemistries continuing to be modified, but we now have a production-viable chemistry. I don’t know that it will be the final answer. My guess will be no. Someone will invent something else. I’m positive of that. It’s just a matter of when, and when will it become commercially available. The question is, do you wait until something else comes along? And at what cost? And how long will it take? But we’re commercially viable now, so it’s time to get going.

How big of a role will hybrids and electric vehicles play in Magna’s future?
I don’t have a sense. It depends on the market and whether electrics and hybrids will take off, whether it’s because people want them or whether legislation will drive us into more of them. It’s hard to tell. But we’re very optimistic about the technology, and we want to be at the leading edge of the technology, especially if they take off.

What do you think personally? Will they catch on?
Hybrids will be required for a large portion of the vehicle fleet to make fuel economy regulations … Electric vehicles, on the other hand, will be more limited because of the range limitations, at least until we find new ways to store energy on board. But there is a great application for electric vehicles, especially in cities and for people who have commutes of relatively short distance. Right now in a standard household with 110 volts and a 15 amp circuit, our vehicle takes in the range of 8 to 10 hours to charge from empty. But electric vehicles can take off even more as we develop our charging systems. We can charge our vehicles with a special charger in 10 to 20 minutes. So if somebody is taking a long trip, you’d be able to pull over get a fill up just like you do at a gas station.

Today, when GM is reportedly preparing plans for a bankruptcy filing, the company unveiled Project P.U.M.A. (Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility), a partnership with Segway to develop an electric, two-wheeled, two-seat vehicle. Larry Burns, GM’s vice-president of research and development and strategic planning, appeared on the Today Show this morning to proclaim, “What we’re doing is reinventing the automobile.”

Ready? The future, apparently:

The vehicle can speed along at 56 km/h and travel 56 kilometres without motorists needing to recharge its lithium-ion battery. It will eventually incorporate technology to drive itself and avoid crashing into things. According to the press release, the vehicle “also enables design creativity, fashion, fun and social networking.” Whatever that means.

Segway’s original two-wheeled device was supposed to revolutionize personal transportation when it was introduced in 2001, but seems only to have succeeded in making police officers and security guards look silly, not to mention being the butt of Weird Al jokes.

P.U.M.A., despite incorporating some neat technology, seems doomed to a similar fate. Weaning North Americans off bulky gas-guzzlers for smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles is difficult enough, but this? Maybe in some kind of Timecop-esque future. It’s also strange that GM has criticized more viable ideas, such as Better Place, and yet presents something like the P.U.M.A. The problems immediately facing GM are massive. The auto industry is shedding jobs like never before, and filing for bankruptcy is a serious option for the company. In the face of these kinds of challenges, the P.U.M.A. and the corresponding PR initiative is just a bizarre distraction.

We knew this was coming, but the context behind why the Canadian government is doling out its dollars, and the timing surrounding today’s announcement, is somewhat irksome.

First of all, the Conservatives were hoping to receive a restructuring plan from the companies tomorrow so they could show Canadians how their money will be used. Well, that’s not coming.

Then Industry Minister Tony Clement said in a press conference today that if the funds weren’t sent to Chrysler asap, the company would have filed for bankruptcy immediately and “whole plants or parts of plants could have been ripped up from Canadian soil and transferred to another country. And jobs would have been with them.”

Now, the funds that are going to the automakers are from a loan that they could have tapped into back in December. They’ve decided to do it now, so the government is just following through with their late 2008 commitment. Still, the fact that they haven’t submitted their restructuring plans, and they’re sending the government into a panic by threatening bankruptcy, makes me wonder — and this is part of the argument against helping the car companies — is saving them really worth it if they don’t seem to respect what the government is doing?

President Obama is at least taking a tougher stand. He announced today that the American government would consider loaning  Chrysler $6 billion if they came up with a “sound agreement that protects American taxpayers.” He is giving them enough money right now to complete their merger with Fiat (GM is getting enough cash to help them operate for 60 days), but it sounds like he’s willing to shut off the cash tap if they don’t come up with a comprehensive plan.

So, while Obama’s taking a more cautious apporach with the automakers, Canada’s government is shelling out cash at literally the same time the car companies are basically giving the country’s taxpayers the finger by not coming up with a restructuring plan.

No one wants to lose jobs, and if the auto plants close a lot of people will be out of work, but so far there are no measures in place to make sure the money the companies receive will actually be put to good use. There’s no direction from them, so we have no idea what they’ll do with the money, besides meet payroll.

The Canadian government needs to take a stronger stance here. They have to be willing to let the auto companies fail and risk putting thousands out of jobs, or they won’t see a plan, they won’t get their money back and we’ll have to rescue GM and Chrysler for months, or years, to come.

The banks perhaps made sense since the whole economy collapses if there is no lending. But the auto companies? Sure, they have received government support before. But it’s mostly been about politics, hasn’t it? The fear of big unions at election time?

The problem with using taxpayers’ money to bail out the auto companies — as they are presently structured — is that their high costs of production will be left in tact and North American cars will remain uncompetitive. In short, it’s not a long-term solution. Foreign manufacturers will continue to eat their lunch and there will be a need for more bailouts down the road.

The real solution is to get costs down and productivity up. The best thing then for the auto industry, taxpayers, and consumers – indeed, just about anybody not working on an auto assembly line — would be to let the car makers file for bankruptcy protection. Then they can be released from the crushing weight of their labor costs to start over in a more competitive position.

Of course, this is not good politics. Well, let’s try a more pragmatic solution then. Allow the bailout but make it conditional on changes that lead to a more competitive industry. In essence, the unions should accept a reduction of their monopoly power in the labor market.

The required adjustments will not easy. So part of the bailout could be allocated to helping workers and retirees adjust to the new realities of the global economy. From the way the economy is going now, it looks like we all will need to tighten our belts. Why should auto workers be exempt?