Dan, Lather, et al: Electric Cars & Government Subsidies
"I'd agree with others that electric cars are far from ready for prime time."
Phooey! Rats! Dan, you spoilsport! <g>
I have to note that the pessimists even include Ralph Nader, according to a (not very good) Newsweek cover story on electric cars this week:
newsweek.com
And I have to say that you are obviously right that electric cars are not "ready for prime time." But they may be ready sooner than all you spoilsports think (g-r-r-r).
Hybrids are clearly going to be the most practical alternative in the near future. Beyond that, there are the FCVs (fuel cell vehicles). I just ran a search, which turned up a monthly newsletter that provides monthly updates on the latest developments in fuel cell technology. Daimler-Benz (Daimler Chrysler), Mercedes, Ford, Toyota, Toshiba, Nissan, Honda, GM, etc., are all working on FCVs, and to this non-engineer, seem to be making impressive progress. The latest newsletter just came out this month:
fuelcells.org
The August newsletter, I should note, cites a very cautious assessment of FCVs from the California Air Resources Board:
CARB Report Positive on Fuel Cell Vehicles, Wary on Cost. The California Air Resources Board's study of the prospects of fuel cell automobiles concludes that "two or three" companies could be offering commercial fuel cell vehicles by 2004 or 2005. The study, prepared by four independent experts under contract to CARB, says that
commercialization on such an abbreviated timetable depends upon "a complete success scenario." While substantialuncertainties and risks remain and "unprecedented" cost reduction is required, , there appear to be no technical or fundamental barriers to success...
(Incidentally, Dan, I do not know whether "California has backed off its ZEV deadline", or whether hybrids are still disallowed. All I know is that California revised its deadline in early 1996. Better ask the Californians here for the specifics.)
Here is another, very optimistic assessment of the future of hydrogen FCVs. (Lather, note especially point #9.)
Hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered cars are the best alternatives to polluting, gasoline-powered cars for several reasons: (1) the cars are completely emission-free, (2) the fuel cells have no moving parts, (3) hydrogen is renewable and abundant, (4) the cars are compatible with cold weather, (5) the fuel cells are compact and lightweight--not overly bulky or heavy, (6) the cars are about 3 times as efficient as gasoline-powered cars, (7) the cars will have incredible mile ranges, (8) the tanks will be refueled quickly, and (9) hydrogen is safe, has been tested rigorously for use in vehicles, and is being used in many
vehicles already.
www2.thefuture.net
Now, to Lather's point, about "artifical subsidies". By that, Lather, do you mean the Clinton Administration's program, designed to stimulate basic research, and called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)? If not, what do you have in mind? What about the European and Japanese car companies, which have been in the forefront of FCV research? Has their research been subsidized,"artificially" or otherwise?
And a more general question, designed to stimulate controversy: what role, if any, should government play in encouraging the development of new technologies? Do "subsidies" have a place?
jbe |
