The U.S. Highway System Is More Than Just a Few Thousand Miles of Macadam
It’s the 60th anniversary of the signing of U.S. President Eisenhower’s Federal Highway Act, which established the Interstate Highway System. On this occasion, let’s note a few aspects of the project that bear mentioning in the context of our modern-day struggles:
• U.S. voters had no real appetite for paying for the project until Eisenhower convinced them that it was essential for the movement of troops and armaments, i.e., that national security was at stake—an extremely clever idea given Americans’ paranoia at the time. Not that it’s abated much since; we always have something to be terrified of. Without terror, we would become brave crusaders of the principles in which we believe; we’d be defiant, daring, uncooperative, and prone to organizing and uniting against corruption and injustice. That’s not what government wants; no ruling body on Earth wants a strident and empowered electorate when it could have a docile and timid one instead.
• The highway system locked the U.S. into its love affair with the automobile, meaning that car ownership would immediately become almost universal, and oil would soon become the life blood of the nation. At the same time, it locked out public transportation as an important aspect of American culture, cementing into place the era of the internal combustion engine and all the military, economic, and environmental horrors that have ensued since.
• All this led us up to where we are today, i.e., governed in large part by ExxonMobil, Chevron, and the others. It’s one of history’s best examples of establishing an entity so powerful and intractable that it overwhelms its master. The vast majority of American voters favor public investment in renewable energy, cutting off subsidies for the oil companies, and a number of other important aspects of environmental stewardship. Yet getting there via a Congress that is owned by Big Oil is proving to be a tough undertaking indeed.
Some people think of the highway system as merely a collection of roads; others know better.
I think that, at best, the Interstate Highway System is a mixed blessing. The idea that it was necessary for defense was perhaps a bit weak even though the fear of the Soviet Union was probably justified. Probably the existing rail system would have been completely adequate for defense purposes.
When the Interstate System was proposed, I was a bit young and not aware of all the implications.
BTW apparently that was the same reason for the building of the AlCan Highway! Soviets never invaded though…
Again, I question whether the interstate highway system really was important from the military standpoint. There was a good rail system capable of providing efficient transportation to just about anyplace. However, the fact that the Soviets never invaded is not relevant. One could argue that it was U.S. prepardness which prevented an invasion.
Actually, if the Soviets had invaded, the interstate highway system would have been helpful for them. I wonder whether that was even considered.
When Germany invaded Russia during World War II, they found the Russian rail system very helpful. The Russians had used a non-standard spacing between rails to prevent foreign invasions. However, that didn’t work; the Germans built special trains which had two sets of wheels to enable them to run on both standard tracks and wider spaced tracks.
We can thank GM, Firestone, and Chevron for the conspiracy that lead to the demise of an extensive light rail system in the US. The same players formed the “highway lobby” that pushed Interstate System and defunding of mass transit. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/what-ever-happened-to-pub_b_633585.html http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/06/28/taken-for-a-ride-on-the-interstate-highway-system/ The articles are a bit old but we are dealing with history not technology.
Breath on the Wind,
While partly true, you can place too much importance on events such as these.
Mass transit systems were in already in trouble all over the world, the overwhelming majority of decisions to scrap or not extend these systems had nothing to do with GM, Firestone or any “highway lobby”.
The rapid growth of individual wealth and car ownership led to the creation of sprawling suburbs. These suburbs were built around the easy and economical accessibility provided by the convenience of automobile ownership. The represented the aspirations of a new type of citizen.
As living standards rose, so did the lifestyle of the new middle class. New industries and workplaces sprang up serviced by a new workforce that drove to work from decentralized suburbs to workplaces located in decentralized suburbs. The old tenement style housing surrounding a large centralized workplace fell into decay, as centralized factories or moved to suburban locations. City centres lost population and remaining inhabitants became marginalized.
Whole work forces disappeared with advancing technology. Suburbs providing intensive manual labour, (longshoremen, dock workers etc), lost significance with the spread of containerization.
This was a phenomenon throughout the western world.
GM, Firestone etc only capitalized on a growing trend. Most of the Street Car companies they bought, were already in mortal financial difficulties.
Marcopolo,
You wrote: “These suburbs were built around the easy and economical accessibility provided by the convenience of automobile ownership.”
True, to an extent, but the easy and economical accessibility would not have existed if roads had not been built to prevent congestion which would have made the accessibility inconvenient. Even now, new roads are being built and lanes are being added to existing roads to relieve congestion. Actually, in the long run, that does not relieve congestion; it simply encourages more people to move farther out thereby increasing urban sprawl thereby making public transportation less practical.
I live in a moderate sized city (Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A. has a population of about 500K) which is almost the epitome of urban sprawl. If people move to the suburb of Rio Rancho, they can more cheaply buy a bigger house on a bigger lot then depend on good freeways (motorways) to get efficiently to their jobs in Albuquerque. So, that is exactly what many people do. It seems to be a never ending process.
When I lived in Minneapolis, MN (1957 – 1978), at first there were no freeways. Soon freeways were built and eventually lanes had to be added to accommodate the additional traffic they generated.
Obviously this process results in continual increases for motor fuel.
What a bizarre reading of history ! Why must everything be a ‘conspiracy’ ?
Governments of modern democratic nations are made up from an assortment of different factions and interest groups. As any democratic leader will tell you, leading a political party is like herding cats ! That’s not taking into consideration the antics of the opposition.
Legislators have only one thing in common, ambition and ego’s !
Secretes and subtle planning make great fiction, but become are impossible with a sensationalist media pack, desperate for scandal, any scandal exists. When even the President can’t keep a personal dalliance secret, what hope is there for any grand conspiracy ?
There are virtually no remaing subsidies for the oil industry, and haven’t been for many years. It’s just an oft repeated myth.
Nor is Congress owned by “oil companies” or anyone else. If that was the case there would be no CAFE and the ethanol industry wouldn’t exist. What’s true, is all politician’s heed powerful special interest groups. Some to support and receive support, while others to oppose in the interests of opposing groups, or just for notoriety and attention.
Americans returning from the second world war, embraced consumer economics. They loved the optimism, choice, opportunity and prosperity of mass produced variety and social mobility.
The automobile promised a life of individual freedom and escape from the drab years of depression and war. Gasoline was cheap and the trill of car ownership irresistible.
It meant that whole new suburbs could be created, where a new middle class of ordinary people could enjoy undreamed of high standard of living and freedom. The expansion in the building and infrastructure industries eliminated slow recovery, and brought full employment and unprecedented wealth.
TV played it’s part in bringing entertainment into the home. Public transport withered because it was too expensive, and no longer fitted people aspirations.
The oil industry doesn’t “own Congress” ! However, the Oil industry is the largest single contributor to the US economy, largest tax payer, and largest single source of tax revenue.
For those reasons any government must consider the oil industry when proposing measures to manage the national economy. The oil industry provides 84% of US retirement and superannuation income. Some 40 million Americans rely on oil industry profits to fund their lifestyle. (In other nations this is funded by taxpayers).
None of this was the creation of any conspiracy, or grand plan, it’s just an historical phenomenon.
Any government must carefully weigh the desirability and affordability of supporting renewable energy, against the cost and effectiveness of such projects. Naturally governments are cautious about creating another ethanol debacle.
Governments can also say to those loud anti-oil critics, ” hey we poured trillions into supporting the development of EV technology, but have you supported the products by purchasing them with your own money? ”
Congress is not stopping Americans from buying EV technology, in fact Congress will give you a generous tax credit.
American’s can’t blame Congress, or oil companies, for their own lack of commitment to green principles. The American left should stop bleating for the government to do something, instead do something positive like buying EV technology.
“Why must everything be a ‘conspiracy’ ?” Marco these defendants were tried and convicted of conspiracy. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/573.html By definition it is no longer a theory. I hardly think it being a “conspiracy theorist” to discuss this fact and the connection to the “highway lobby.”
Breath on the Wind
There were no “criminal” charges brought, and the corporate defendants were only fined in a civil trial $5,000 while individual executives were fined a mere $1.00 each !
Careful reading of the case, reveals the prosecution did not relate to a conspiracy to eliminate street cars and other mass transport systems out of business by unfair methods,(as is alleged by conspiracy theorists), but that the interests behind NCL and allies attempted to monopolize the supply and control of a replacement mass transit system, ie: buses.
That. in a nutshell is the basis of the various cases brought against GM. Firestone, Hertz, and others.
The idea that Street cars systems, suburban railways and other mas transit systems were popular and profitable, is incorrect.
In reality, all of these systems were ailing and had already fallen into receivership or bankruptcy. GM, Firestone etc simply sought to gain a monopoly by buying up the old companies, and their licenses to provide public transport so that no rival bus company could compete. That was the real conspiracy, and the one that occupied the contest of the action against the defendants.
That’s the thing with conspiracy theories they rely on a lot of distortions, mixed with a little truth quoted out of context.
The chief purveyors of this myth were Edwin J. Quinby, a charismatic crank with a flair for publicity, and Bradford C. Snell an overly ambitious assistant attorney with the US States Senate Anti-trust Subcommittee.
Snell’s 1974 allegations, entrenched belief in the myth. It became impossible to dispel the perception of a conspiracy in public acceptance, despite almost all of Snell’s evidence subsequently being proven unreliable, invented or just plain wrong.
One example of Snell’s many inaccuracies is his allegation that the conspirators (NCL) had conspired to “kill the New York Street Cars”. The fact’s don’t support this allegation.
As far back as 1890, New York Street Car operators suffered severe financial setbacks and bankruptcies. The largest survivor, the New York Railways Company, collapsed into bankruptcy in 1919. To solve the problem of a chaotic and unreliable transit system Mayor John Hylan began his famous “emergency bus lines”.
By 1918, a motor Coach operator, which was to become Green Bus Lines, was already competing with the troubled Street Car companies, and servicing a much wider area of New York. This company exits today,and never had any connection with GM, or any of the alleged conspirators.
Six years after the New York Railways Company went into receivership, Mayor Haylan allowed the sale of the Bankrupt enterprise to the New York Railways Corporation, which over the next 15 years converted most of the routes to Bus services, supplied by Yellow Coach Manufacturing Company.
New York Railway Shareholders included Yellow Coach Manufacturing Company, GM and New York City Omnibus Corporation (later Fifth Avenue Coach Lines). Other Stockholders included John Hertz.
There is no doubt that GM and allies offered fierce competition to Street car and rail mass transit systems, but the idea that this is why rail mass transit fell out of favour world-wide is ludicrous. and not borne out by historical reality.
At the risk of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist,” allow me to point out (as was firmly recognized by Teddy Roosevelt, Adam Smith, and many other notables across human history) that “capital organizes.”
To assert otherwise is to evidence a lack of information, a lack of intellect, or a lack of integrity (or a blend of more than one of those deficits).
Cameron,
What a coy little remark ! But what are you really saying ?
Are you doubting the historic validity of what I wrote, or just adding a snide little comment impugning the integrity or intellect to be found in my comment ?
If so, let’s not be coy. Why not state boldly and clearly in the light of day what it is that you find inaccurate or incorrect in my observations ?
Tell me how the decision to discontinue trams in Bristol UK, Sydney Australia, Auckland NZ or a thousand other cities was due to the actions of Firestone, GM or Chevron ?
It’s late at night, and I’m sitting in the guest lounge of one more soulless airport, awaiting a delayed flight. The only thing open is the bar, and food of dubious quality, so yeah, I’ve got lot’s of time to debate issues of cant and hypocrisy.
Ok, so given the “history” (however motivated), where do we go from here?
Do we push for change, or do we dash headlong off the cliff?
My grandfather, a lifelong capitalist and petro-geologist (in the 1930’s), absolutely loathed FDR. Ok, he was rich and could look after his poorer relatives, but not everyone could.
But when he retired in 1953, his comment to my mother was, “I don’t know what we’re going to do when the oil runs out…”
So, we’re a lot closer, burning all that stuff has caused a lot of problems, and we’re no closer to a solution. Newer technologies exist but they are fought against every step of the way – not by all, but certainly by those with a vested interest in the “status quo”.
Recently, when oil was (relatively) expensive, my off-grid house was “cool”. Now it’s just an oddity. Same with the whole “eat local” movement.
Oil’s sitting about $50/barrel. The price will rise – first major spill, first field showing dry… When it does, people with money will be fine, but the poor and the farmers will be hurt a lot.
But meanwhile, we dash madly off across the plain and ignore that cliff approaching from the distance. What a silly civilization we are.
Roger,
M.King Hubbert’s theory of imminent “peak oil” has pretty much been discredited by the amazing advances in hydrocarbon exploration, extraction, refining and management technology.
The price of oil will rise, but it will remain relatively economically viable for many decades. At the same time, the rate of consumption of oil as a fuel source will continue to drop as more economic, cleaner technologies are introduced lower consumption and even compete with oil as a fuel.
Like all political leaders, FDR had his moments of greatness. He also had moments of discredit and appalling judgement. As his health deteriorated, so did his judgement and greatness.
Marcopolo,
I’m not sure that the theory has actually been discredited. However, new discovery and extortion technologies have greatly changed the timetable, and that’s not necessarily a good thing.
I meant “extraction”, not “extortion”.
These automatic spelling “correctors” are dangerous, and sometime humorous.
Funny, I read the “extortion” as an ironic political comment – and laughed. “Extraction” makes a lot more sense…
I’ve read through the debates and rhetoric of the different points of view. And as with a democracy there are numerous points of interest and import that make TOTAL sense. What Marco Polo states is entirely correct. As so are some of the other disseminated information.
The fact remains that many “things” that occur in a “free” society come from the desire for “wants” versus “needs”. The automobile came about because of the “want” of the ” freedom ” to come and go as we please and individualism. Farmers take up the occupation of farming from the desire for freedom.
So our society has become “less” dependant on public transportation. The fact that big oil, automotive industry,marketing companies, products that revolve around the automobile have become our largest entities is because these groups had the foresight (and with the help of a capitalisticeconomy) to be as powerful as they are today.
In 1908 there were 5 alternatives to “power” the automobile. Gas, diesel, horses, steam,and even electric. So why did gas prevail to become the “dominant” source of energy. This is what the public was lead to believe is best, and most economical. Here we are looking at “new” efficient diesel engines, ev’s, hybrids, not to mention hydrogen (my personal favorite). Why has it taken THIS society over 100 years to wake up and “smell the coffee “. European countries (and the rest of the world ) have been using better diesels for many years.
We are a spoiled society of “wants” not “needs”. The perfect analogy is look at public transportation in Europe and even parts of Asia and south America.
You nailed it with We are a spoiled society of “wants” not “needs”.
My next door neighbor has the following bumper sticker:
“I’m not needy, I’m wanty.”
“Why must everything be a ‘conspiracy’ ?” Marco these defendants were tried and convicted of conspiracy. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/334/573.html By definition it is no longer a theory. I hardly think it being a “conspiracy theorist” to discuss this fact and the connection to the “highway lobby.”
I agree that the curve has shifted, but the reality is we don’t build dinosaurs like we used to. The consumption curve has shifted too, and the new stuff is more expensive in both dollars and environmental damage.
The supply is, by definition, finite. All the easy stuff is gone, the remaining supplies are draining down and costs are steadily rising – think “huff and puff” in the tar sands.
How much of the North Saskatchewan are we prepared to dump out as oily sludge on the Prairies? How much are we prepared to risk on ice movement in the North Slope?
Whether it’s us, or our kids, or our grandkids, the end is coming. A smart species would save as much as possible for feed stocks for other products instead of burning it – but we’re not very smart.
Roger,
Here’s the thing, not only does new technology mean oil is cheaper to discover and extract, but it also means a huge saving in negative ecological impact.
Old oil fields once thought long played out are now productive again. Oil fields, long considered to expensive and difficult to explore and exploit are now economically accessible. The operation and management of existing oil fields is changing beyond recognition.
It’s now possible to ‘map’ with little, or no environmental impact. Where once the sinking of hundreds of expensive (and environmentally harmful) test wells was essential, the new oil field of the future are being located and mapped without a single test well, but incredible precision.
Along side these developments, the demand for oil as a fuel is dropping, or at least not increasing exponentially.
Lot’s of positive news gets lost in the hyperbole of overly emotional, but inaccurate doomsday scenario’s.
When it comes to environmental issues there are no ‘perfect’ solutions, just improvements and “good” technology helping to make a non-disruptive, evolution possible.
I understand what you’re saying – it would be lovely to think we can go on indefinitely into the future as we have in the past, but the resource cost of extracting it just keeps going up. Steam injection for the tar sands, water injection into failing wells… the cost (especially in potable water) keeps going up in order to extract something that we know we need to stop using.
Moving from oil to post-oil is going to be as disruptive as going from horse to auto. The horse breeders and wagon makers had a difficult time as their “business models” collapsed around them – the same is coming for the petroleum industry.
I’m old – I’m sure that the hearse that carries me off with be petroleum powered, but I’m equally certain that the one that transports my grandchildren’s won’t be.
The fact that old oil fields are now productive again is more worrying than comforting – the price of oil is rising, and the value we place on other resources is falling compared to short-term convenience. Who cares how much water and air we use up as long as we can continue to eat to excess carbon-intensive foods from around the world?
I still drive a car, but my grandkids won’t – not petro-powered, in any case.
If your parents leave you a legacy, what sense does it make to become addicted to a lifestyle that you can’t possibly afford once you’ve spent that legacy?
We’re not good at seeing trends, and especially not good at seeing trends we don’t want to see. And we will deliberately blind ourselves to inconvenient truths if it means postponing, even slightly immediate pleasures.
After all, the Titanic was unsinkable until it got a hole poked in it…
You write: We’re not good at seeing trends, and especially not good at seeing trends we don’t want to see. And we will deliberately blind ourselves to inconvenient truths if it means postponing, even slightly immediate pleasures. That’s beautifully well-written, and IMO, it’s exactly the phenomenon that has the capacity to sink us. When push comes to shove, most people simply don’t care.
Now I know Cameron will be along shortly to encourage me to look at the bright side. 🙂
Thanks Craig.
And I believe there is a “bright side”. 10 years ago, I “caused to have built” (they didn’t let me touch a hammer!) a house that is powered by PV and heated with a combination of solar hot water, a little bit of firewood (though less than grows each year on my town lot), and has a natural gas supply that I use for cooking and for fooling the insurance company into thinking that that’s my heat source.
100 years ago, houses were compact and well-insulated. Since the ’60’s, they’re mostly huge and badly built. We can change that.
I’m in Central Canada, yet I have no furnace. In the hottest weather, I have no air conditioning. Yet I neither freeze nor boil. Building this house cost a little more, but if you consider the fact that I’ve paid no energy bills in 10 years, the construction costs were negligible.
The standard for insulation in this jurisdiction is R20 in the walls – mine are R44. The standard for the attic is R28 – mine is about R60.
The walls are thicker than normal – all the insulation is standard fibreglas batt (some Roxul) but the walls are framed with 2×4 (mostly used). Stamped lumber, designed by an architect, inspected and approved by the building inspector. (I also spent about a year going to all the buildings in the area being demolished to reclaim used studs and used batts.)
My point is this – I’m a retired music teacher, not an architect, not some really “handy” guy. And I did nothing that does not meet a stringent building code.
Cheap oil meant we could be incredibly wasteful – take the old Dodge 450 hemi in a car for example. Oil went up – and now my efficient 18 yr. old 4 cyl burns less in a week than I used to burn in a day. My next one will be electric.
The “bright side” will appear during the next oil “shortage”. Price shock will get more people interesting in being less wasteful. Not “conserving” – that smacks of “doing without”, of suffering privation. Just “not wasting”.
Count the number of minivans going to work tomorrow carrying only one person… Imagine how much you could support your local farmer if your fuel bill were reduced by 50%…
It’s neither the technology nor the money that’s the problem – merely the mindset. I have hope.
If We, the US machine could see our way past our “desires” we would see that YES we can do and expedite all sorts of technologies in SO much more efficient a manner.
Many years ago I thought of how we can “levitate”(see malevolent trains) so that cars and trucks would have minimal contact with road surface ( using electromagnetic repulsive forces). Then through enormously reduced friction we can move transportation , and let’s say wind propulsion, much more efficiently and economically. The “Macaddam” would need much less maintenance and repair.
But due to the fact that most people in this country are “sheep”, it makes it difficult to for “average people to see that “Hey, I don’t have to drive a gas guzzling (see larger SUV) pig to get where I’m going. The true questions are ; “Can WE change our own attitude and perception? We are “slowly” adapting.
But if their WAS a TRUE need ( like 1974, the gas crisis ) we would more swiftly “adopt” better methods of transportation and SO much more
Rob – what is a “malevolent train”? I assume you’re thinking of “mag-lev”, maybe monorails.
That kind of system is great for long haul, high-speed movement of goods and people. But for “local”, especially in suburban or rural areas, it doesn’t work – we still need small, reliable, efficient, transportation. And for most of us, e-bikes won’t work most of the year in most weather.
And think of the energy and environmental costs of trying to change all the existing vehicles. Imagine trying to make enough e-cars and batteries and charging stations, etc. to replace 20% of the vehicles every year for 5 years…
In 1974, the prime mover of public behaviour was price, but as soon as the price fell we went back to our “old” ways. Next time, going back won’t be an option.
I fear there will be a lot of very unhappy people. Very unhappy…
Rob was obviously victimized by the spelling “corrector”. If you misspell a word it guesses and the guess is sometimes wrong. Surely it has also happened to you.
“Surely it has also happened to you.” Oh yes – many times and with hideously embarrassing results – far worse than this!
In fact, I quite like the image of the “Malevolent Train” – sounds like a title for some “technology gone berserk” horror movie!
I hope Rob was not offended by my response.
I’m with you. I loved the image of some nasty little train, up to no good.
Sort of the anti-“Little engine that Could” – More like the “Little engine that could but darn well chooses not to!” (Or maybe that book was not part of your childhood…)
anyway, no offense was intended.
Perhaps the reason that China is among the first to have a maglev train is that China has a virtual monopoly on the rare earth metal that is necessary to make the extra strong magnets which make maglev trains possible. Rare earth elements are not especially rare but for environmental reasons, they are not mined and refined here in the U.S.
Hi folks. I did maglev rrain. And the technology was invented in Brookhaven lab on long Island in 1960. The one true thing that “unhinges” me is that WE , the US, bring SOOOO many innovative and technological Marvel’s to the the world. And yet everyone else produces and copies what we do.
Getting back to vehicles. To Roger’s query we would be able to do vehicles on all roads, including rural areas. But the true comment that it would be cosy prohibitI’ve is VERY much the issue. Like the infrastructure, the “disadvantage of time” has made many truly possible advances difficult. I’m working with some “new” technologies at this moment that can be very revolutionary in the not too distant future.
I’m hoping that we as a people can see past our difficulty with change and advancement.
The “highway ” system as we know it is obsolete and inefficient.
As to the error, my apologies.
This group of people that are communicatino are interesting, intelligent, open minded, and innovative. Unfortunately not all of the human race is like this. We need to “understand ” and accept this. As the saying goes; Rome wasn’t built in a day. We can only try to educate and influence others into “understanding ” the alternatives that are available to all of us. This is why soo many innovative products and solutions never get a strong “foothold “. Biomass is the ultimate example. Look how efficient the systems in northern Europe are (and there are even working examples here). But because it is NOT mainstream or aesthetically pleasing the concept of biomass in this country is an afterthought.
Thanks folks. Hope to hear back from you soon
Rob,
You wrote: “The one true thing that “unhinges” me is that WE , the US, bring SOOOO many innovative and technological Marvel’s to the the world. And yet everyone else produces and copies what we do.”
I herewith give examples:
Electronic multi-point fuel injection for cars was an American invention yet it did not become available on American cars until at least 15 years after it was used on European cars.
Industrial robots were an American invention yet the Japanese car manufacturers were using them years before American car manufacturers were.
The fully automatic transmission and the microprocessor were American inventions yet Toyota introduced the first computerized automatic transmission.
This one is less clear:
When the U.S. government imposed emissions restrictions on cars, American cars didn’t run well. When you stepped on the gas, they would surge forward, hesitate, perhaps backfire through the carburetor, then take off. American manufacturers lobbied congress to have the emissions restrictions relaxed, stating that they could not make cars that ran well with the emissions restrictions. Meanwhile, foreign manufacturers somehow managed to make cars which ran well even with the emissions restrictions.
At least in the automotive field, there is something very wrong with U.S. manufacturers. That is part of the reason that foreign car manufacturers have been so successful in the U.S. market.
so, I guess my question is Why are we so slow to adopt these innovations? It can’t be the technology – it has to be our buying habits. If enough people requested them, we could easily have battery-electric Honda Civics, that we could charge at home for free.
But on the tube tonight are a) a car race from somewhere, and b) some stupid movie about road racing. The movie I want to see is “Too Fast, Too Furious, Too Stupid!” about a bunch of guys who race from here to there on a fixed budget – a small fixed budget.
The sort of dollar budget most of us live with, and the sort of energy budget we can all live with.
Back when V8 Mustangs, and Camero’s and ‘Vettes were “the car”, I bought a 1972 Datsun 510. I drove half way across the continent on about $150 of gas (Toronto-Vancouver). The average N.A. car got about 8 miles/imperial gallon. My Datsun got close to 20. There were 4 of us and all our camping gear.
Car manufacturers will make what we will buy. When full-size pickups are no longer “cool” for the commute to work, they’ll make way more small efficient cars. And compete for our money.
To be blunt, I worry far less about auto lobby than I do about the oil lobby, but we as consumers are making the choices. It’s up to us.
And when we start demanding extended range battery-electric cars we’ll get them.
Actually Roger that’s not entirely true. The car manufacturer’s “stage” development of cars so that the “next” models would look “cooler ” and technologically more advanced. It is NOT beneficial for a car company to give the public what we should really be driving.
This is NOT about big oil or the automotive industry. This is about consumer ignorance and how the “sheep” can be lead to water”.
We, the American public, are the reason that technologies escape us. That “We” let countries and corporations(GREED) let these transactions to occur.
What is the largest export we have given the world? Any ideas? Consumerism. We have “created ” the economy of the world. Ergo, China and all else follow our lead.
When you look around the world, most countries are protectiomist in nature.That is how a company like Nokia became the largest cell phone manufacturer in the world at one point. From a tiny country like Finland. Read “the world after oil”. Can we correct this?
As stated by previous examples by roger, we are exceptional at technology and innovation. For us to bring back manufacturing we can only do this with “advanced” technology, like robotics. Through this, we could bring back good paying, high quality engineering and manufacturing. We are a “paper pushing” service oriented society
Rob:
I don’t think I said that car companies give us what we “should” be buying – they try to give us what we want to buy. All “suppliers” do that – they try to meet a “demand”. Even better, they try to create a demand.
But we decide – we buy or don’t buy. Small, local farms have done well in my area in the last decade, because consumers are looking for fresh, organic food. The big chain stores still do well, but even they carry a much larger percentage of “local” than they used to.
Nokia make a lot of cell phones because they convinced a lot of people to want cell phones.
Goods have always been bought and sold, or traded for. But in an open economy, it is the consumer who decides. In the ’60’s and ’70s, American cars were big, expensive to run and unreliable. (“Unsafe at any speed”) But consumers like me decided that smaller was better – hence the success of Datsun and Toyota. GM still made Cadillac, but over time they got smaller and “better”, because that’s what people wanted and if GM didn’t give it to them, they’d go to a car company that did.
Houses are getting better insulated because people are now getting concerned about energy – mostly about the cost to the pocketbook, but there is also some awareness of the “carbon” cost.
When first Japan, then India and now China opened up to the world their goods were relatively inexpensive because their labour costs were so much lower. We bought a lot of them. Gradually, wages have evened out (not totally, but closer) and other factors (reliability, repair-abilty) created a shift in demand. Now (to some extent) environmental factors are coming to play, so demand is shifting again. I don’t claim that it’s “good” but it’s getting better.
One key consideration is that the world is a global market – you can buy and sell anything to anywhere. So it becomes a question of consumers understanding the consequences of their purchasing choices.
I buy tomatoes from my local farmer – i could probably buy cheaper from a grocery store, but my local farmer has kids who want to go to college or university. The tomatoes he grows have a smaller carbon footprint and I can ask him what he sprayed on them. That stuff matters to me so I make my buying decisions based in part on those criteria.
And for years, I gave presentations to high school students in the local schools on the benefits of “local, organic, sustainable.”
I also used to teach adults how to upgrade their own computers, adding RAM and hard drives, upgrading video cards, etc.
I believe in empowering adults to make “informed” decisions. The informed consumer will not really care what Big Oil or Big Auto likes – they will buy what best meets their physical and emotional needs. Since almost anything will meet their physical needs (my 1812 Shoe Phone works fine!) there is then only the competition between what “sellers” want us to want, and what “society”, both micro (family and neighbours) and macro (social norms), want us to want.
“Big Oil” or Big Anything can only follow our lead. We have the power – we just sometimes forget to exercise it.
Et Al,
Gentlemen, if I may intrude with a digression. I have a degree of self interest in the development of EV transport-v- gasoline/diesel powered vehicles, since for 18 years I’ve been the principal ( and main investor)of a business producing, selling, leasing and servicing specialist EV’s in Australasia and the South Pacific.
In the UK and several other countries I have some influence in corporate fleet vehicle financing, as a result I have acquired a modest knowledge of attitudes and problems associated with the development and adoption of environmentally friendly automotive technology.
As an investor, I’ve taken some losses in pioneering EV technology, although Tesla and other investments have more than compensated.
I’ve tried to promote EV, EREV and even hybrid as much as possible. In Australia my choice of personal transport has always been Lexus hybrids. (although I have just ordered a new model BMW i8 update, scheduled for delivery 2017).
In the UK I have been more than satisfied with my Liberty Electric Range Rover. ( Possibly the most satisfying vehicle I have ever owned).
My company car is a Tesla P85. This vehicle was originally purchased as a corporate courtesy car replacing a BMW 7 series. The car is still in excellent condition and I have “inherited’ the vehicle since for tax reasons it will be replaced for a newer Tesla. The Tesla has proved so successful we will order an additional model S as a replacement for another aging BMW 7 series limousine.
So my question is simple. I’m always interested to learn the personal transport choices of fellow environmentalists.
I must confess to being irritated by those loud ‘green’ advocates, full of hate and bile for auto companies and big oil, who nevertheless seem to become very shy when spending their own money to practice what they preach !
However, it’s the personal transport choices of fellow moderates which most interests me. I would sincerely welcome any opinions or experiences with EV technology you may which to share.
Roger, hi. What you say is all true and correctly on point.
The one point I was elaborating on is that the “masses” are “sheep”. Yes,We the people,are given many choices. Then why is it so that SUV’s/CUV’s are 70 % of all automobiles at this time. They are still WAY less gas/energy efficient than a 4 cylinder,EV, or small diesel. The simple truth and answer is we WANT to be be comfortable and in luxury (and even status). So the automotive industry “play ‘s” on this fact of human nature. The human race, in general, are “sheep”.The reason of the TV,radio,computer becomin the most prolific way of information being disseminated is that WE the people, find it the “easiest” way to get our entertainment,information. We are inundated with it. For the simple purpose of influencingredients us on what is “new” and what We should “buy”.
Roger, to your point of “educating” people I wholeheartedly agree and applaud you. Unfortunately, in our society today we have become totally “lazy” and “addicted” to what we are fed.
The people WANT change. The political arena right now is the perfect example. Bernie Sanders popularity comes from that “NEED” for change. Just as Trmp’s popularity comes mostly from “dissatisfaction” with the system. England ‘s renouncemen of the EU is also an announcement of change. Yes, WEARE screaming for change. The MOST important factor RIGHT NOW is to have the proper person to “lead” that change.NOT Hocus-pocus. We need(not all of us as roger has demonstrated by his desire to “educate ” people) to have an FDR or lyndon johnson, or a bill Clinton lead us in a way of change.This inherent “problem ” of change comes about too slowly because it is done mostly on a “micro” scale. Unless, like the TV or computer and the like that it has such “Mass appeal” change takes forever. And the MOST important factor is the “Education” of people with REAL, TRUE information, NOT Hocus-pocus.
marcopolo
I’d love an EV. I think that, if one includes the present value of all the gas one will buy (or, more to the point) not buy, they’re actually probably good value.
But, if they’re going to get traction in a consumer market, it will be the Prius or the Civic Hybrid that takes us there, not the Lexus and Range Rover. I have a friend who could buy any car he wants but, for his commute of about 20 miles round trip, he bought an e-bike. And good rain gear.
He putts down the road in all weather – changes when he gets to his factory.
This bike is limited to 30kph, and riding it on the road does not require a “motorcycle license”, but it is “green” to buy and operate.
Where are the ads and displays by and for people who think it’s “cool to be green”?
Why is there no group lobbying for an electric moped class license that will mean you can legally drive 60kph on a road?
Hi Roger,
Thank you for your reply.
I’m not sure where you live, but in most locations 2 wheel transport is restricted to the young, healthy and brave ! (and those who don’t take passengers etc).
In Australia 2 wheel traffic represents only 4%, yet accounts for more than 36% of all road fatalities. Most developed nations have similar statistic’s.
I agree, the most valuable vehicle that introduced the average person to the value and practicality of EV technology is the Prius. Tesla, Lexus, BMW and Liberty Electric Range Rovers, help set the right image. Prestige vehicles with EV technology dispel the stigma of a dweeby impractical vehicle for nerdy types.
It took the massive power of Toyota’s reputations for reliability and value to get the Prius accepted with more than 10 million sales. Toyota backed the technology by including Hybrid in it’s prestige luxury range.
As a result, Camry hybrids have become a viable volume seller, pushing the number of Toyota hybrids to more than 12 million.
Tesla has done a brilliant job of proving long range EV’s are possible, if expensive. Renault-Nissan’s Carlos Ghosn has shown what a determined CEO can do if sufficiently motivated.
Owning an EV, EREV, PHEV or even hybrid has more appeal than just saving fuel costs. The satisfaction of being the first generation to own technology that until just six years ago was just a dream, more science fiction than reality, must have appeal.
So too must be the sense of leading by example. Driving an EV is making a statement. It clearly states “this is what I believe and I’m willing to pay a little extra for my principles”.
For an American, driving a Tesla Model S P90D states, ” Hi World, once again the USA is building the world most advanced automotive technology, with great build quality, and a heap of sex appeal!”.
Of course their will always be those hypocritical Kiljoy’s who equate support for the environment with the need to be a humorless puritan, but for the majority of people, a Tesla is a convincing display of confidence in a clean tech future.
(Thanks for sharing your thoughts).
Hello again folks. I agree with roger in reference to e-bikes. It has GREAT practical applications. Numerous years ago, I met a gentleman, Carl Vogel, who “built ” his own electric motorcycle. He actually made a video of it, as well. I, personally, got to see the bike. It was bulky, but it worked. He also was the president of the long Island chapter for EV’s.And a member of the national board. He had asked me if I would want to start a chapter in the westchester county (above NYC)Putnam County, and dutchess county area. I knew I w A s moving back to long Island, so I decided. He also started the 1st commercial EV expo in NYC. It was cool but under attended. Fedex, UPS,the US mail, and coned All had electric “trucks” there.
The biggest problem, ass Marco pointed out, is safety. In Large urban areas people with 4 wheels drive with little concern or awareness of those around them and even there own safety. So, by the mear fact that automobiles go faster, easier to handle makes people more aggressive. The ideal solution would be for e-bikes to have park-n-rides at train stations. They would take up WAY less room than cars/trucks, can be charged cheaper, faster, easier. And we had “Maglev” trains so that commutes (the Mta of NY is currently, quietly, working on a project for a type of Maglev train using there existing, extensive system) many more people would use public transportation to get to large urban areas. This would make All kinds of EV transportation very enticing and “Sexy”. If Ny can do this on their large system they could conceivably dramatically change the outcome of how people perceive EV vehicles (and other forms, i.e. hydrogen).This could become the GRAND “leader” into a more efficient, more cost efficient society. This is what is needed by a large entity. Toyota is trying to start the “hydrogen”revolution”in California and conneticut by helping to “build “the infrastructure. We are at an amazing time in history if we open our “eyes” and adapt and accept the “opportunities ” that surround us
And the amazing “byproduct” of this is We, worldwide, can help to “clean up” the environment we so haphazardly helped to contaminate. This is the “ultimate ” WIN-WIN. For us for our children, and their children. If WE stop being SOOO self-centered, and self-contained and SEE BEYOND our own WANTS, but more towards our NEEDS
Hello again folks. To add a little information. On this past Thursday, I was informed a company in the USA has “patented” and about to go into production with a device that can be applied in roadways so that Ev’s and the like can “drive” over them and be “charged” in 20 minutes. I don’t know how efficient it would be for larger commercial scale vehicles. The MTA has a federal grant (4 million ) to bring electric buses that can have an electric “charge” for up to 50 hours. They are converting a lot of their diesel /electric hybrids back to “clean” diesels because of the ‘headache ‘s they’ve had with existing electric buses. But think of the possibilities and ease with which EV can be charged. This could become a VERY enticing and “Sexy” stimulant for EV.
To frank eggers. What you ‘stated about China and “rare” materials has some merit. Li-ion batteries are produced in China on a large scale because, besides the “cheap” labor they control the vast majority of a FINITE (which NO one is taking into account) material that type of battery (energy) storage. These are all unforseen and under-discussed topics.
There are also ‘New” rare”materials that are coming to market that will have exponentially important impact. Like graphene, and pantene. I like to read. That is how I “educate” myself. Not the BOOB tube. The Internet of course, but there many books, older books, and of course certain papers and magazines. Is it All true? NO.But there is valuable information to be found.
By the way, Marco, can the liberty “electric”land Rover be imported into the U S.Also, I’m hoping to work with someone (he patented a particular vehicular item that can have amazing consequences. BMW came to him in 2007 to put them in their vehicles.Toyota is currently working on something similar. It is a “small “accessory ” but can have amazing consequences, in a positive way
Rob K,
You mentioned a device that can charge EVs in 20 minutes, presumably inductively. Let’s do the arithmetic and see how that works out.
The Chevy Volt’s battery has a capacity of 16.5 KWH. That means that to charge it in 20 minutes, i.e., 1/3 of an hour, the charge rate would have to be 16,500 x 3, or 49,500 watts per hour. At 240 volts, that would be 206 amperes. Transferring power at that rate without a metal to metal connection seems quite questionable. Even if it were possible to transfer power inductively at that rate, I’m not sure that a battery could be charged that quickly without damaging it or at least shortening its life. And, the Chevy Volt has a rather limited range. With EVs having a longer range, recharging in only 20 minutes would be even more difficult.
Large enough coils could transfer power at that rate, but the size required to do so would most likely make them impractical even if high frequencies were used.
Probably EVs will become more common as public acceptance increases and as improvements are made. However, when batteries run low, it may turn out that when on a trip, battery exchange would be a more practical solution than recharging in spite of what Tesla is doing.
Hi Rob,
The Liberty Electric Range Rover, wasn’t actually made by Range Rover but is very unique and highly successful conversion.
In 2014 LEC Ltd was taken over by Green Automotive Company of Nevada, since then Liberty has been concentrating on building it’s EV service base and the production of EV’s seems to have wound down. green Automotive also took over the activities of the Newport Coachworks Inc [http://www.newportcoachworks.com/]
Recently, Jaguar-Land Rover has announced that it’s 2017 new models will include several vehicles with EV technology, including an all electric 4WD SUV, with a 450 mile range, and a diesel-electric PHEV with 120 miles electric mode.
Exciting times.
Hi guys – thanks for the discussion.
I’m in Central Canada. 5 months from now the temperature won’t get above freezing even in the middle of the day, and it will stay that way for 4 months. (Well, more or less…)
I’m 67 and retired. I’m moving from a lovely beach property (that requires WAY too much snow shoveling!) into town. But the “luxury car” has never appealed to me. I have a ’98 Civic that still starts every time I turn the key, and a ’78 Westy which will be my “vacation property”.
Being in town (and it’s a small town) will mean that something small and electric is ideal for me. My sister has a Prius (about 6 years old?) that has been great.
I like the people who have small, light vehicles, and add a tall red “caution” flag – it attracts the attention of all around. Which is good for both safety and promoting the electric part.
But the Lexus, Tesla, Camry – I’ve never understood the appeal of really expensive, depreciable assets. For me, the car is about transportation – luxury is irrelevant. (Mind you, I spend a lot on concerts and recordings, and organic food… I guess we all have our own priorities.)
Roger.
Roger,
I have a 2004 Mazda 3 hatchback with only 20,000 miles on it. Except for the fact that the air conditioning is not adequate for the 95+F temperatures here, I’m quite happy with the car and may have it for another 12 years.
The Camry is not particularly expensive and I wouldn’t see one as a serious extravagance, but I cannot see buying cars which cost well above $30K. Perhaps in the early 1950s one got a much better car by spending more than the cost of a low price car, but now the differences, in my opinion, are not worth the extra cost. The maintenance costs of expensive cars can be shockingly high. There are many perfectly adequate cars which cost no more than $20K.
Frank – the other big change I’ve seen is durability. When I was a kid, my dad bought fleet cars for a company. They got rid of them every 3 years – unreliable and too expensive to maintain.
My, how the times have changed – my 2 vehicles are 31 yrs and 18 yrs. There’s some rust on the 18 yr old Civic, but I live in a snow belt with lots of salt on the roads in the winter.
A $30k car over 15 years (ignoring scrap value) costs $2k/yr which ends up at something under $200/month (including oil changes ). That’s pretty cheap transportation. You can spend more, if “keeping up with the Jones'” is important, but that says that fuel is (for most of us) more than the capital cost of the vehicle.
But what it also says to me is that an extra $X for good batteries and electricity is an easy choice. (In fact, I wouldn’t know what the price difference would be if you took out the motor and added the electric – my degree’s in music, not building things!) With PV or wind, I eliminate most of the “fuel” cost too.
I seem to remember that the “average” one way commute is about 25 miles (that could be wrong – it’s an old memory)which i would think would be very do-able on a single charge. Maybe with a refill at work?
Assuming my $30k Camry is as well-built (body, frame) today as my old Civic, my commuting cost just went way down – both in $$ and in carbon footprint.
The big deal here seems to be that EVs are expensive because we don’t build a lot of them, and we don’t build a lot of them because they’re expensive.
Same was true of my PV panels – when I bought them they retailed for $6.50/watt. Now they’re about $1/watt. I bought mine anyway and am glad I did because, while the prices were falling, I still wasn’t paying for grid power.
But “early adopters” always pay a premium. And that’s ok with me, too. (OTOH, with computers, I always wait for the old ones – they do everything I need, and the 14ms. speed difference just doesn’t matter. To me.)
I’m sure the prices will fall. As more companies get into making them and the competition increases, I would expect serious price reductions in the next 5 years.
I agree that the Camry in absolute terms is not “expensive”, but as a rapidly depreciating asset, “cheap” works for me! .
Aside from battery replacement, would you anticipate “maintenance” on an EV to be higher than on any other car? I can’t imagine it but, again, not a mechanic.
I’ve never had air conditioning (well, I think it came on the Civic, but I’ve never used it.) I rely on “4-50” air conditioning – 4 windows open @ 50 mph. I once drove the prairies in the middle of July – full sun, temps in the mid-30s (Cdn) (90’s? US?) That was nasty, so I parked and took a nap from noon till 5, then drove until midnight. Cooler, and no traffic. After 3 days I was in the Rockies – no more problem.
Anyway, thanks for this discussion – I’m enjoying it.
Roger,
You’re right about durability.
In the early 1950s, people expected that the engine would require a valve job before 50,000 miles and soon after that, oil consumption would increase. Engines commonly, or usually, required a major overhaul before 100,000 miles. Now engines will commonly go for 200,000 miles without even a valve job. Improved metallurgy, better filters, and improved lubricants have greatly improved durability. If you took an early 1950s engine and put modern bearings, pistons, rings, valves, and filters into it, and used modern oil, it might last as long as a modern engine. Doing that would not be difficult.
If it were not for the cost of the battery, EVs surely would cost less than gasoline cars. Mechanically they are far simpler, although the electronics can be complicated.
Because I no longer live in the snow belt (rust belt?), rust is no longer a problem. However, car manufactures have greatly improved rust protection. At one time, where road salt was heavy, cars commonly had body cancer by the time they were four years old. Now some won’t have holes in the body at eight years. Of course here in the sun belt rust is very minimal, but we could not get along without air conditioning!!
Some of the old automatic transmissions were better for winter driving than the modern ones. The old 4-speed GM Hydramatic was intentionally designed to make shifting back and fourth between low and reverse very quick to expedite rocking the car if stuck. That also worked well with the old Powerglides. That is totally impossible with modern automatic transmissions. So, not all progress is really progress.
Hello frank. I don’t disagree with you. I’m just sharing what I was very recently exposed to. As I learn more I would be “Happy” to share this information. For these reasons (A) you would be of great help to analyze and “vette” this technology. You would understand this much better than I. And for this I would be very grateful. (B ) I could use intelligent and informed people to help me disseminate this technology to EV groups and people. Thanks rob k
Rob,
That technology may be practical for use in a garage and for charging at a somewhat lower rate. It would be more convenient than having to plug the car in. But recharging an empty battery in 20 minutes? I suppose if the battery had an adequate cooling system it might be possible.
Exaggerated claims are common. We’ll just have to wait and see how it pans out.
Yes, very much so. I would be happy to share information when I receive it. I look forward to All input from “educated” individuals. If you would like to continue this conversation over the next couple of months, I’d be happy to have others involved. And there can be financial rewards as well. I realive that NOT all people are motivated by money. From the underlying ongoing conversation I’m impressed by the “desire” for change among this group. You all think in terms of truly understanding and “forwarding” the principals that we are discussing. I, too come from the concept; “build it and they will come”. Thanks. May we all share and continue this conversation
It’s very heartening to see so many interesting comments, from pretty positive people.
IMO is also been an insightful conversation. The concept of charging EV’s by means of the highway, is as old as battery swapping, and just as impractical and unrealistic.
Our discussion does reveal one of the principal reasons why EV technology has made a greater impact. Well educated, caring environmentalist see automobiles as an extravagance, and not owning a luxury model as sort of counter-culture badge of honour.
That’s okay in it’s own way, but it doesn’t help introduce new technology which requires the high capital costs of R&D to be initially recovered from high priced luxury models.
The dilemma for EV manufacturers in seeking volume sales, is that if the products are not supported by sales to vociferous green activists, or even moderate environmentalists, who will buy these products in sufficient numbers to bring the price down ?
The general public witnessing such a lack of personal commitment has every right to reject calls for further taxpayer funding of “green ” policies. Taxpayers sense hypocrisy, not perhaps in the science, but certainly in the increasingly shrill political advocacy.
This, as I see it, is the biggest impediment to progress.
Transition will be difficult, especially for middle aged and older people. There is a general revolt against politicians with complex, difficult to understand, policies.
A vast number of people want a populist (or several) who reassures them that they are not left behind, ignored, or made to feel stupid or small.
They will elect politicians who are as simple and uncomprehending as themselves, as long as they confirm that there is nothing to worry about and their existing world can continue. (Even more dangerous are politicians who are neither stupid or simple, but pretend to be).
This isn’t the fault of these people. The fault lies with arrogant, self-righteous alarmist advocates, self-importantly conducting a “crusade” with confused ideology, ignoring and treating with contempt all those who don’t share their vision.
It’s the duty of environmentalists to reach out and convince the “silent majority” of the exciting new benefits offered by clean tech technology. Consumers need to feel clean tech is for their benefit and convenience. This must be done without preaching bitter moral sermons, or alienating folk with ideological political claptrap.
Preaching sermons only makes the Preacher and faithful feel good ! The targets of the sermon just get more resentful.
I (sort of) agree with you. (The “sort of” is the political part, but since I’m Cdn. I can ignore the US political scene… )
I talk to everyone about my house. I do “open house” on Earth Day. I talk to kids in schools.
But mostly I wait for the price of fuel to go up. Right now it’s cheap, so no-one’s motivated to change. when the cost of powering the house spikes, or when an ice-storm leaves 10 million people in the dark, general interest ramps up. It will happen.
My main thrust is the benefits of selfishness. Off grid means a storm doesn’t take out my power so I have to throw out a freezer full of food. off grid means I don’ have to pay that stupid bill every month.
EV means I don’t have to buy gas all the time. Or ever.
The benefits of “selfishness”!
I have 40kw.hr batteries powering this house. they’re old and they’re lead acid. Newer ones are cheaper and lighter. How much power is consumed driving a car? Especially at commuter speeds? I have no idea – I teach music.
But it would cost about $5k to replace my batteries – any idea what the battery cost is for a Prius? Again, I would guess that the rest of the electronics are just “plug and play” – cheaper as they make more of them.
I’ve driven my Civic (and my VW) through the Rockies in mid-winter, including one trip to the Yukon. Modern transmissions and better tires make getting stuck in the snow almost a total non-issue.
My 15 year old Civic has a couple of holes around wheel wells, but I’m in the land of snow and road salt – not surprising, and that’s strictly cosmetic so far. The truth is I’ll get tired of the Civic before it dies on me. (I think I’ll donate it to the local secondary school for their auto shop class, when I’m done with it! They can fix it up and auction it off!)
and I’ve been thinking about the “recharge speed”… How often would that be a big deal? I’ve heard that some cities are adding recharging capacity to parking meters…
and if I were doing a really major drive, I would probably plan a lunch break in the middle of the day. Charging stations at “rest stops” or restaurants will (eventually) provide another revenue stream. Stop for lunch, plug the car in, come back in an hour fed and “watered”, and drive off. Should be enough time for the batteries to recharge, no?
Hi Roger,
Canada is sort of Australia in reverse ! I’m sitting in my office in Melbourne where people are complaining of the mid-winter temperature of 12C (or 54 F). Mild in comparison to Canada 🙂
I returned in time for the Australian general election, which once again promises to deliver a debacle.(sigh)
Recharging is a worrisome issue for EV technology. ‘Range Anxiety ‘ is a real concern and public charging remains confusing and relatively inconvenient for the average person. It’s true that a range of 80- 100 miles satisfies most commutes, but folk don’t really want to invest in a vehicle limited to only commuter travel.
Volt and BMW overcome this problem with EREV technology, and everyone ( but die hard purists) can enjoy the practicability of these vehicles.
(the cost of replacing the Prius battery pack varies, ( as low as $2000 in some locations) but since the batteries last more than 10 years, it’s cheaper to buy a new vehicle.
Over the next few years battery technology will continue to improve.
Tesla’s solution of dedicated fast chargers, is just brilliant! The long range of the Model S when combined with the ease and convenience of fast charging, (Max 20 minutes) allows the vehicle to rival the convenience and practicability of ICE vehicles.
Although a Tesla is well worth the money, it’s true that fuel savings alone can’t justify the price of a new Tesla on purely economic grounds, but who cares ? You only pass by this life once! Purchasing a Tesla buys a piece of the future, while leading by example.
Yes, you should get rid of your old Honda Civic !:)
All old cars, (except for well maintained and restored classics) increase pollution and lessen road safety. They also do nothing to help the economy or encourage innovation.
If you are lazy and forgetful like me, I recommend installing wireless charging at home. Just park, and the cars computer does the rest.
While in the UK, I had the opportunity during the Brexit campaign to canvass Boris Johnson’s interesting proposal for a deeper common bond between Canada, UK, Australia and NZ.
In many ways this would be very beneficial for the UK. It would form a new and remarkably powerful economic zone, especially if joined by other Commonwealth Nations. Australia’s extensive free trade agreements would become available to the UK.
A closer relationship (common passport) between Aus, NZ UK and Canada would be very attractive to the fractious Scots and Welsh from where so many Canada, UK and NZ migrants arrived, and still share a common heritage.
Already, the EU is splitting into two camps around Germany and French claims for leadership.
Interesting times.
Hello marcopolo. I realize that it is late (or very early) in Australia. What you say about EV’s is completely true. Without a ” security” of being able to travel to destimations without “fear of running out of fuel (electric)people are “restricted” in their thoughts of owning / leasing an EV. Without the total, easy access to an infrastructure for fueling (charging) in place there is that very great concern. That is why Toyota is doing what they are doing for hydrogen cars. If they “build”an infrastructure (even on a relatively confined scale ) they feel that they,the people (and sales) will come.Honda had the fcx in California but no true infrastructure for “fueling”.GM has tested hydrogen in the DC area years back. If Toyota were to be successful (see the prius)(all other car manufacturer’s didn’t believe it would gain much traction, boy are they kicking themselves)all other manufacturers are poised to follow. Getting back to EV’s, marcopolo, you are totally correct.
By the way, your analysis of the the Brexit scenario is interesting with the “linking” of Canada, Australia,and England and their neighbors. I concur, as spock would say. The sad and ultimately destructive part of this is , as you stated, look what it is already doing to Europe. The euro will disappear. But more importantly, what will it do to the European economy and how the continent functions. And also the global economic impact that this is going to have. In the fairly immediate future, this is a precarious situation.
Hi Roger,
The FCV versus EV debate can get a bit crazy among the more rabid enthusiasts.
Essentially, both are technologies designed to provide zero emission vehicles. In my opinion, the pro’s and con’s of both technologies can be summed up as follows:
Electric.
Pro; Battery technology exists, outside of the battery and recharging net work BEV technology is very mature and well advanced, the worlds electrical supply network is very extensive, electricity can be sourced from renewable zero-emission generation.
Con; ESD (electric storage device) technology still very immature,and inadequate limiting applications to light vehicles only, problems with fast charging and accessibility, High cost and weight of ESD, lack of capacity reducing range and convenience. Disruptive technology
Fuel Cell :
Pro; Potentially unlimited applications including Shipping and heavy transport, non-disruptive technology designed to simply replace the fuel, not the means of distribution or operation, Governments can collect tax revenue, distribution by corporations.
Con; Cumbersome technology, needing massive production and distribution infrastructure, very vulnerable to BEV competition in the advent of a “breakthrough” in BEV ESD technology.
It’s worth noting that Shell and Chevron estimate the cost of replacing the current North American gasoline and diesel networks with H2 refilling stations, would be less than $ 26 billion, (a mere pittance for the oil majors) while H2 could be produced, distributed and taxed at around $3 per gallon. ( FCV’s use 50% less H2 than gasoline or diesel equivalents).
In fact, Shell estimates that given the business opportunities in such a roll-out, Shell could actually make a profit before the first H2 was sold !
So it’s a matter of scientific development to see which technology becomes dominant. The outcome depends on the development of BEV ESD.
At the moment, there is no pressure on Toyota, Hyundai, etc to push the introduction of FCV’s any faster, since EV’s are selling in very low numbers, and gasoline is cheap and plentiful.
I’m not quite sure how we got on to Brexit. Here in the U.S., Brexit caused the stock market to drop quickly. However, yesterday, the Dow hit an all-time high. I won’t even try to guess how this will work out.
Hi again…
I’m ducking, completely, the significance of the whole Brexit thing. I know nothing about it, and I live in Canada where I only have one foreign neighbour, 200+km away and when I get there, I’m only in Buffalo NY!
That being said, I wouldn’t count on being able to go there and back without recharging.
Large distances here are taken for granted. for a while, I dated a woman who lived 400km from here. One or the other of us drove round trip each weekend. Assuming the batteries were in top shape, I would barely have been able to make the trip either way without recharging.
I will be getting rid of the old Civic – but while the carbon footprint is undoubtedly higher per km. than a new one, what is the carbon cost of building a new car when the old one still functions?
Especially when the annual mileage is quite small.
I’m intending to buy an e-bike to handle short trips. It could be nasty in the snow but… For long trips (2500 – 5000 miles) I have a vintage Westy. It would be interesting to figure out the carbon footprint of 4 weeks on the road, staying in the camper, cooking my own meals from local food vs. driving a car, staying in hotels and eating in restaurants. Or worse, flying.
Not that I really care – I going to camp my way across Canada, visit some friends and drive back! (Ok, I do care, but given the low carbon life I’ve lived for the last 10 years I’m willing to take on the guilt!)
Hi Roger,
I think your choice of an E-bike is very brave. I’m afraid my lifestyle is becoming very sedentary. I really like the idea of a road trip in a motorhome, but I have never found the time.
I do enjoy sailing, and I try to spend at least a few weeks a year with my youngest child sailing in the South Pacific. I also take an active interest in our two farming farming properties.
But, I’ll confess I’m an inveterate buyer of new technology, especially clean tech. I decided when I left the Army (a career I loved) to make money, I would at least enjoy the material compensations of pursuing a profession I would not have chosen but for circumstance beyond my control.
When I was a teenager, I hitch-hiked across Canada in Autumn. It was an an awesome experience, a breathtakingly beautiful nation with wonderful people.
(She must have been some lady friend to merit an 800 klm round trip !):)
I’m glad you got to see the colours in the autumn – most people don’t believe they’re real unless they come to see for themselves. It’s a sort of early compensation for the 5 months of snow that’s coming (sorry we didn’t meet when you were here…)
I have a bit of mixed feelings about buying “bleeding edge” tech. I was somewhat of an “early adopter” for an off-grid house, but I try to avoid buying “toys” just because they’re new. Too much stuff in our landfills already.
(I wonder when someone’s going to take out a “mining permit” to go through landfills of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s to recover all the usable materials (metals, etc) that were buried then.)
I love the idea of a “mining permit” for old waste dumps !
Reality has caught up with your idea ! There are several corporations seeking funding to do exactly what you suggest. The recycling of some valuable waste will become an increasingly viable industry.
The only concern I have with this is the waste stream from landfill recycling – We buried a lot of stuff since WW2 that really should not have been. If we now dig it up again, how are we going to ensure that none of that stuff ever reaches the water or air or soil?
Every technology has risks – landfill again, incinerate, launch it into the Sun, encase in concrete at the bottom of the Marianna Trench…
We’re leaving a nasty legacy for our heirs.
Yes indeed, ….although, who knows ? Maybe technology may become so far advanced we may have left them “treasure” !
Without seeming to be disrespectful, I want to reply, “and maybe pigs will fly.”
We have lots of “natural resources” but even we are using them up faster than is sustainable. I wait for the US army to come to Canada to take drinking water to feed the fountains in Las Vegas.
When we run out of petroleum as fuel and base stock for synthetics, what then?
Sometimes I feel like we’re lemmings, running full tilt to the edge of the cliff, chanting “so far, so good”.
She is – but the relationship sort of fizzled after about 20 years. Ah well – c’est la vie. (I’m Canadian – bilingual is sort of expected.
Hello folks. I’m actually working with a technology “Right Now” that uses no fuel, gas or oil. Using electricity, in a closed loop system. We are about to “engage” on building 2 pilot projects. One for 10.5 Mw’s. Another between 5-10 Mw’s. These should be up and running by the beginning of ml next year. And we can scale them larger. I’m going to speak with utilities about the technology, as well. This can (will)become a Very interesting and innovative technology if we can prove the viability of the system.
But to get the point of what roger is saying, yes natural resources are limited. But with new materials (look up graphene) coming forward there will be many “technologies that will be beneficial, without using “Massive” amounts of natural resources,like hydrogen.
Roger Priddle,
I really doubt that the U.S. army will raid Canada for water. However, that does point out a serious problem, i.e, fresh water shortages. That is a problem in many places of the world and is one of the reasons that sea water desalination will probably have to be greatly expanded. The fact that sea water desalination is very energy intensive is a problem.
Probably the world’s demand for power will increase by about four times as poor nations strive to lift their people out of poverty. That includes power for sea water desalination, lighting, heating, cooking, etc. etc. Moreover, practically all of that power must come from non-CO2 emitting sources which do not require being backed up with fossil fueled systems, and it must be reliable power. It will be a real challenge, and I do not expect that it will be met in a timely manner.
I wish I were as confident as you. The Ogallala aquifer has dropped 150 feet or more. It’s finite and they’re spraying it all over the plains at a great rate
What happens when the US doesn’t have enough water to irrigate crops, when the cities don’t have enough water to fill their hot tubs? “Oh, look north – there are the Great Lakes – we haven’t completely polluted them yet, and there is still water in them.”
I’m sure you know that there have been several proposals to dig a ditch from the bottom of Lake Michigan and run the water into the Mississippi… What’s wrong with that picture! The Great Lakes are all one system – tapping one taps them all.
Imagine the chaos created by the demand for a diminishing resource increasing 4-fold. Desalination has huge problems – energy requirements and soil destruction being just two.
For a century we’ve treated “natural resources” as infinite – we’re suddenly realizing they’re not, as some of them run out. (surprise!)
We’re getting so desperate, we’re playing with the idea of taking a major river, heating the water (nuclear?) and using that to wash sand out of tar. Ok – full marks for creativity, but zero for common sense and long term planning!
Hello frank eggers. What you say and think about the water desalination problem is completely on point. Energy to do desalination is huge. I’m actually working with a group at present that is working to reduce the energy side of the equation. Where are you located? If you don’t mind my asking
Frank – is there anyway to desalinate water other than to evaporate the H2O away to be recondensed somewhere else? I suppose Osmotic filters could work but the energy and waste costs must be terrific.
In any case, what do we do with the super-saline remainders? Or the salt reside?
Just curious…
Gentlemen,
Australia is a very old and dry continent. For nearly a century every Australian school child learns to recite the Dorothea Mackellar poem, “I Love a Sunburnt Country”, which includes the verses;
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror
The wide brown land for me!
But despite the image, Australia actually has a lot of water, just not at the right time or place. In the past poor knowledge and bad water management practice ( especially in rural areas)has proved disastrous to the nation and environment.
Australia does famously suffer droughts. During the lat severe drought of 2000-2010, the Labour government in the State of Victoria, not a State usually bothered by severe drought panicked.
Convinced by “green” activists and climate change extremists, that the nation was now experiencing “irreversible” drought intensifying over the decades to come, the Victorian government commissioned the construction of a large, and overly expensive desalination plant.
Of course, the result was obvious, by the time the plant was built, the drought was over and to this day, the plant has never produced any water ! The plant cost over $5 billion to build (in comparison to a comparable plant in Perth costing only $400 million).
What’s worse, the plant costs $ 1.8 million per day to maintain without producing water, (the cost of producing water would be ruinous). The government contract allows for these payments to continue for 27 years at a total cost of $20 billion, while doubling every Victorians water bill.
The problem became even more compounded when the government tried to desperately justify the plant’s construction by adding Wind and Solar power supply to bolster the negative environmental image. Unfortunately, intermittent generation proved inappropriate, just adding to the financial and environmental boondoggle.
( I suppose just having a large bill and a useless plant, is better than the Queensland labour/green government accepting the same alarmist advise and neglecting levees and flood measures resulting in devastation and loss of life when the “extinct” floods arrived.)
Desalination technology comes in many forms:
Reverse osmosis
Electrodialysis
Multi-stage flash distillation
Multiple-effect distillation
Vapor-compression desalination
Solar humidification
Membrane Distillation
Of these technologies, reverse osmosis has proven to be the most successful.
Obviously, there are some locations and applications where desalination technology can be usefully deployed. Solar and small thorium nuclear plants could be deployed to great effect in such areas.
In most cases, better water management, small scale conservation technologies, recycling, storage, storm water retention, catchment development etc, provides better results than grand projects.
In Australia, I invested in an ancient system of water conservation and management by building aquifers on my property.
If carefully constructed, aquifers can help reduce soil salinity and provide water during drought by means of windmills, and underground distribution to prevent wastage from evaporation. (It’s possible to drip feed even pasture).
As a reward for my efforts, the Labour /green alliance government insisted I was building dams and therefore storing rain, so demanded a hefty tax bill with fines !
It took a lengthy court battle before the government finally conceded. (The proceedings would have bankrupted most farmers, but fortunately I am a lawyer, and have access to other income).
The world is not “running out of water” ! However, with increasing population water management requires more careful planning and sensible management.
The good news is that in the developed world, water is the one resource which has been very neglected when it comes to management and conservation. For this reason investment in developing new water management technologies produces dramatic results.
Greetings Craig, Roger , Rob, Marco Polo , Frank and Cameron and the others wonderful Enlightening conversation. Quite Thoughtful indeed and I find common ground with much of what has been said.
People who still do some critical thinking and Contemplative Conception beyond their own limited ego or comfort zone. That is good because most of the world due to a voluminous set of drivers and negative social conditioning results in limiting short term reaction ( I did not say thinking ) .As a result positive progress and adaption to challenges , especially resource and price challenges , flawed political processes all combine to create cultures that are “Leeming and Self Limiting” in nature and practice often with failed results.
As stated earlier – the Human condition is Flawed and ones of its biggest manifestations is that a majority of mankind is driven by WANTS over Needs – this is almost a fatal flaw and may hasten our demise in the future Don’t know for sure.
In 2007/2008 I laughed as gas prices had spiked to over $ 4.20 a gallon deep in Heart of Texas and all its new Shale oil ( higher cost too. a discussion on the Myths and Snake Oil of Shale Oil would be a good exercise. Lots of trucks and SUV’s were parked with for Sale signs, as I drove West to El Paso a Big Border Town the number of these vehicles for sale grew and grew. $4.20 gas had shocked both the wealthier Bubba boys in Central Texas and the poorer new generation Border Hispanics ( who unlike their wise and frugal parents years ago who lived within their means ) the younger ones have been seduced by the consumption /ego validation culture and bought Big SUVs with sub prime credit too and now they, like the wealthier Central Bubba Texans could not afford to drive them!
Poetic Justice or rough Justice. The much discussed Peak Oil concept has many components beyond raw supply. Peak Oil prices was bringing braggards and lemmings to their collective knees.
The price shock worked its way thru the US economy and has resulted in Demand Destruction even though prices have fallen real low again in the last two years. Initially it sparked EV interest and other types of fuels etc . But todays low gas prices has resulted in the braggards and lemmings going back to buying big trucks and SUV’s. Thank our Stars that our president was able to get some new fuel efficiency standards CAFE into law over the narrow minded and yes bought off right leaning politicos in Washington as they had been asleept at the Wheel since the 1970’s. I guess thats what they mean by that shallow slogan American Exceptionalism. Perhaps ! So the mileage is improving but not at the level we need to be at from a sustainable environmental policy prescription. But it will be a price hedge in coming years for sure.
That darn Human Condition and all its Flaws short term impulses first and the hell with the long term..consequences ..delays and retard the market acceptance of some fine EV and other Hybrid cars. The infrastructure, charging issues all can be over come and may provide Electric Utilities with a much needed new revenue opportunity. Perhaps they will rise up out of their collective monopolistic SILO s and seize Opportunity to advance the transition! Yet To be determined?
Marco asks what type of car we drive, I am a BOW TIE guy – my 1986 Chevy went 235,000 solid miles and my 1998 gave me 16 years and 232,000 good miles. I now have a 2014 Malibu and just got 32 miles per gal doing 80 mphr with the AC on on a road trip to Albq where Frank E lives. My Chevy’s have met my needs and exceeded operational costs concerns. Excellent Performance Value.
Market Dysfunction hurting EV s too
When I visit Chevy dealerships and some other brands too( just for Kicks) I test the sales people and ask about the Volt ( BTW which gets highest buyer ratings of all of the EV’s) they have low interest and say they only have a demo or something lame.
They quickly steer me to a SUV or Truck as they make more money selling them. That ugly side of capitalism and its many market failures…too numerous to write about.
So its going to take another spike in gas prices. Millenials are wiser and they will adapt new tech for sure and are , its just that so many lack real good jobs and the income to buy EV’s etc. Close to a third of college graduate Millennials still live at home with parents!
So a better economy would help drive sales for sure.
The discussion is flirting with nuclear power to help address the pending water shortages or infrastructure needs to provide the water we need globally. De-Sal technologies need large volumes of power and perhaps solar and the other renewable s are going to need a Non fossil fuel supply to provide the needed power either primarily or supplemental.
In a recent 2 green energy discussion some one stated that there was only a 5 or 10 year supply of Uranium in the world. So nuclear is not an option was their position.
This is for Marco as he has consistently expressed his support for nuclear or thorium type reactors and once again he expressed that view.
I did some research and have attached a link below that all may find positive and interesting.
The Feds and Oak Ridge and Pacific Northwest Labs along with some other Academic Institutions along with China, Japan have concluded some research on harvesting uranium from the oceans with promising initial results.
First off the resource estimates for Uranium are a 100 year supply at current consumption rates.
The oceans contain 10,000 year supply and the link below is a short paper on how they can do this . Enjoy so perhaps this may lead to a better out come for the future in respect to complimenting a renewable energy supply.
Provided by Oak Ridge National Laboratory
APA citation: Advances in extracting uranium from seawater announced in special issue (2016, April 21)
retrieved 11 July 2016 from http://phys.org/news/2016-04-advances-uranium-seawater-specialissue.html
A few more slices of information that illustrates the complexity of energy /water nexus and related.
In El Paso where the largest INland Water Desal plant operates they have learned that it is less expensive to re treat sewage water into drinking water and they are doing it.
But long term demand still requires that they purchase water ranches 120 miles East into the Mtn desert so that they can pipe water back over 120 miles or more. The cost to do this is going to raise water rates over 325 % per the Water utility planners. Last week they voted to do so and bought the Big Project vision.
Marco’s excellent description of the water plant fiasco in Australia sends warnings that our locals may be embarking into white elephant big project dead ends. While I have more Sunsets than Sunrises for myself I deeply hope for the generations that follow that this expensive water transport concept Works out for those who will need it. The area is quite poor and prospects for better are few and limited to the upper few like most of America is now trending.
Thank all of you for wonderful conversation and many good practices each in their own way and scale. Its a Wonderful Life despite the Flawed Human Condition