Chip, I tend to agree with you. Couple that to the tendency for electric cars to be best in the sorts of roles that we would least want to be played by cars, and the electric car begins to fill me with dread. Yes, the electric has a vast advantage over any sort of IC propulsion in that it consumes nothing at all sat still in gridlock, but do we then cultivate gridlock in order to have the benefit of that?
A few points others might not have thought of: 1. Cheap mobility is a bit like cheap food. The latter doesn't solve world hunger: on the contrary, it undermines people's ability to generate food for themselves. Just so cheap(er) mobility won't make people mobile, it will much more tend to stimulate development that capitalises on greater available mobility, thereby increasing everyone's need for mobility. On balance we'll probably be further away from anything like "surplus mobility". How much potential is there for urban expansion? We're very far from physically running out of space, so there is a lot of room for the problem to get worse. I for one don't want the Cape winelands to turn into suburbs. 2. Then, of course, an increase in the prevalent need for mobility translates into an increase in the need for electricity. Most do the math based on existing levels of mobility, but that isn't a given. Just like builders of power stations "respond" to anticipated "demand" for electricity as if that were something self-creating and inevitable. I've seen the typical number of light sources in a moderately luxurious living room go from four or five to sixty or so in response to "efficient" lighting. The overall current draw has increased. Just like the potential for generating new places we need to go is probably endless, we can likely go on dreaming up new needs for electricity for ever. 3. Most comparisons assume the sorts of batteries that are currently in use. Substituting a battery type that is more open to local small-scale manufacture, like the Edison cell, changes the picture entirely. And other types have serious manufacturing issues. Edison cells are really very well suited to static applications, but are huge and heavy for their current capacity. 4. Electric propulsion isn't really complex. That's why the major automakers have been holding back. That's why GM only leased their previous EV: they didn't want people modifying them (they certainly didn't want people sticking IC drivetrains in them!) The automakers were waiting for a way to make EVs complex enough (unobtanium-goofium batteries), and they wanted legislation to "force" them, in the way corporations provoke legislation in order to build positions of privilege. The major automakers really want to make EVs, as they're much more like cellphones than like grandfather clocks to make, and likely to be highly disposable to boot, but they don't want to open themselves up to competition from all kinds of upstart start-ups in the process. Electric vehicles have their place. Trams and tractors can best make use of electric propulsion, not cars. Given the right sort of battery we're looking at heavy, high-torque vehicles. In a car that's the old gently-humming phone booth type, which is a solution to the sort of problem that is far better solved by walking. Regards Dawie Coetzee ________________________________ From: Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Mon, 29 November, 2010 21:11:23 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 8 Electric-Car Myths Busted >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:40:00 AM >Subject: [Biofuel] 8 Electric-Car Myths Busted > >http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/01/electric-car-myths > >8 Electric-Car Myths Busted I enjoyed this article, and coupled with this bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ makes it all look like EV's are the best thing since the 'taming' of fire. While all this tasty cornucopian goodness looks good to the last drop, I just remain unconvinced that cars are the answer to any problem at all. I don't care how the car is powered. I see them as the problem. Fun, yes, handy, yes (in the absence of some sensible transporation, like walking to the train station), and certainly enjoyable, but I just don't think the pros outweigh the cons. i just don't. But that's me. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20101130/7e6b2473/attachment.html _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
