Electric Cars: Change, But No Change
Bill Gates once suggested that if the auto industry had advanced as quickly as the computer industry we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.
The auto industry was quick to respond to this, arguing that if they developed their products in the same way as the computer industry then occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, upon which you would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single “This Car Has Performed an Illegal Operation” warning light and every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
In many regards auto technology has advanced significantly in recent years. The car I drive today feels light years ahead of the old-banger I first drove at 17, but in other respects, not much has changed at all. We still rely on the faithful internal combustion engine, the principle of which remains unchanged since its invention over 100 years ago.
A similar paradox played out recently, with BMW considering the launch of a ground breaking all electric car next year, whilst at the same time vigorously lobbying for concessions on EU legislation for emissions improvements. – Change, but no change.
The answer is obvious – auto manufacturers have billions of dollars invested in current product lines and technologies, and are understandably reluctant to see the industry turned on it’s head through dramatic shifts in technology and production principles. The tragedy is that if petrol cost $1,000 dollars a gallon, one could be almost certain that alternative technologies would be in place in less time than it took to put a man on the moon.
Looking on the bright side
But there is cause for a positive outlook, as with hindsight I’ve been frequently surprised by the speed of sudden shifts in auto technology. Just two examples:
In 1988 I read of the poor performance of many cars in crash tests, and the limited budgets for safety research in comparison to performance marketing. Then one day Volvo found a way to make safety sell cars, and within only a few years safety was at the top of every manufacturers feature list, saving thousands of lives in the process.
In the 1990’s fuel consumption was secondary consideration in most auto purchases, and a car which was more efficient yet more expensive would not have been viable from a marketing perspective. However, sales of the Toyota Prius have surpassed many expectations with numerous manufacturers jumping onto the hybrid bandwagon.
All that’s required for rapid change is demand, and demand for greener cars is rapidly building as consumer attitudes change and new legislation is introduced. Right now, a large number of very clever people are working on alternative energy sources for cars in response to this demand.
Let’s just hope that they are more clever than the lobbyists who are working in the opposite direction.
The tragedy is that if petrol cost $1,000 dollars a gallon, one could be almost certain that alternative technologies would be in place in less time than it took to put a man on the moon.
These statements drive me crazy, we harnessed the power of fire to provide every form of energy we use today, even all the green tech gets produced by some sort of energy release from hydrocarbons or uses products derived from them in their construction. It is going to take a little longer than building a rocket powered by … wait for it… hydrocarbon fuel… manufactured with energy from coal and oil… to replace that entire energy source.
Electric cars are not new and there is no conspiracy besides the fact they have been terrible products.
With the level of fossil fuel based electrical production we have a impasse, we cannot be adding demand for electricity until we solve the generation problems from CO2 free sources.
This is a completely upside down way of looking at the problem. Just like bio-fuel the impacts of demand are being ignored because of the same drilled in logic that it is an individual who drives changes.
Innovation in Products Drive Change.
Without innovation people would still be just as happy with a regular non-HD TV, or a CRT computer monitor. Did not know we needed it until someone made it, it had benefits we liked, it filled a need like a PID [Personal Isolation Device],iPod anyone? which made the public transit experience bearable.
IMO Solve the electrical generation issue, while increasing fuel efficency in vehicles far beyond 35 mpg, I think we could have 50+ mpg world wide by 2020. Use efficency to help curb electrical demand, so that you are not playing the catch-up game with power by demanding more and more faster than can even be deployed in a realistic time frame.
If we built renewable energy sites with current technology levels non-stop we could not even keep pace with current growth demand.
Simple fact of capacity and efficency.
Demanding electric cars is going to make the energy problems worse not better. I know electricity seems like magic but it is not, and we take it far too much for granted, just wait until electricity starts lagging demand, we will see how dependent we are on energy.