What you say about forcasting is true, but every serious retrospect that I’ve seen and read sbout problems of towns and cities in the 1800s concurs that animal waste, primarily from horses, was a serious issue. While the study of the 1900s period may have been linear forcasting, the health issues were real.
I’m inclined to believe it when he says that the invention of the affordable car was seen as a very real and welcomed solution to a serious problem.
PostScript: you’re right about Ralph Nader. Although I think he unfairly demonized the Corvair, and think he really did it for him own self-servving interests, we do have him to thank for countless very effective safety innovations.
“I don’t believe conspiracy theories…economics rules”.
I see a contradiction. Economics does rule I agree and corporations by their very nature, do what they can to maximize profits. If that means holding patents on existing old technology until the profits have run their course and not using more advanced ones they may be more beneficial. Releasing patents to other more capable companies for the public good is the last thing on their mind. If that’s not conspiratorial, I don’t know what is. I have seen this going on in the drug industry, It’s only logical that an amoral energy corporation wouldn’t be any different.
Tobacco and chemical (asbestos) conspiring for years in keeping their deadly products on the market and tobacco in particular, lacing their products with habit forming drugs. Playing games with energy sources to maximize profit on the part of the energy companies is child’s play and well within the capability and approved tactics of their board members. IMO, it’s the rule, not the exception and all because, “economics rule”.
It’s only natural to think that those with more money and power are smarter, when in reality they just have more audacity.
It’s true that no company ever released a patent…or did anything else ever…for altruistic purposes, but it’d also true that there’s strong economic reasons for introducing newer, better product as soon as the technology is proven usable and reliable. The thing that killed electric cars was not conspiracy. The thing that killed recent electric cars was that they were not yet ready to be released as daily drivers, not really cost competative in the long run, and not yet developed sufficiently for the company to have confidence supporting them in the long run.
Any company that develops the first successful EV that everyone can afford would be in a position to achieve a windfall beyond the dreams of any CEO or investor.
Sure, electric vehicles have their own drawbacks, but as caddyman pointed out, and I agree we need to cut down our dependency on oil.
Its not necessary to totally eliminate gas/diesel vehicles. I don’t forsee an electric powered firetruck in the near future,but cutting the consumption by 1/3rd would help.
I think electric power will be just one of the options. More technology always comes.
I forget who said “every thing that is going to be invented has” that was said around 1905
Who killed the electric ?
That should be WHAT killed the electric car ! Next time you fill you car sit and wait for a coupleof hours before you drive it again - annoying ain’t it ? That’s the best time for recharging batteries ! Electrics are good for little old ladies that only drive around town !
80%-90% of all vehicle trips can be accommodated by 100 mile range electric vehicles…
The American attitude “I want it all and I want it NOW!!” is in the process of being changed bit by bit every day…Driving a car around all day because you have nothing better to do is NOT a productive pastime or an acceptable recreational activity…
I guess part of the $7,000 difference between the cost to own a hybrid Camry vs. a regular Camry must be the purchase price, but can the battery in a hybrid Camry really last more than five years?
Mtn Mentat, if you claim industrial wind energy results in more greenhouse emissions than burning fossil fuels, you are going to have to back that up. That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
The same goes for all-electric cars. If you claim driving electric cars will result in more greenhouse emissions, you are going to have to back that up too.
Personally, I think we do a better job of regulating smokestack emissions than we do tailpipe emissions, especially now that we are starting to use Differential Absorption LiDAR to measure smokestack emissions instead of using an archaic mathematical formula to estimate smokestack emissions.
Also, don’t forget there is an economy of scale when we get power from the grid instead of generating it on the fly as we drive down the road. There is much less wasted energy at a power plant than there is in an internal combustion engine.
In this forum, we have bounced around ideas that would solve that problem. One way would be a battery exchange program. Some envision that some day, you will pull into a fuel station, pay the attendant, and the attendant will swap your depleted battery pack for a charged one, all in the time it takes to put fuel in your tank.
It’s pretty easy to list obstacles, but it doesn’t take much extra effort to come up with possible solutions to those problems. You should try it.
Electric vehicles aren’t just good for little old ladies. They are also good for those who are capable of thinking outside the box.
"The thing that killed recent electric cars was that they were not yet ready to be released as daily drivers, not really cost competative in the long run, and not yet developed sufficiently for the company to have confidence supporting them in the long run. "
This is where I get into trouble and disagree with many of you. It is my experience that support of an EV is minimal, making the profit after the sales in parts and service so low as not to provide the long term profits for car companies. The comparable number of moving parts between the ev and the ICE and transmission is so weighted towards the traditional car generating more long term profit for the car companies, it’s not even worth considering EVs for car companies. With their independence and multi fuel flexibility, they should be out of favor of energy corps. as well.
It’s obvious why car companies and energy corps. would be reluctant to support reasonably priced EV s for all.