The limiting factor for ordinary everyday use is not battery technology (as much as the oil companies and other lobby groups would have us believe) but is actually the general motoring publics reluctance to accept a range below what they can get with a petrol car, even though a higher range than what current technology offers is not required for most car users on a day to day basis. I can understand this unwillingness to be potentially restricted and it's one of the reasons I made sure my electric bike will get up even the steepest of hills I may come across. The solution for people who want to be able to cover long journeys beyond the batteries range is either to plan a charging break for a few hours mid journey or use alternative forms of transport such as public transport or a rental car on the odd occassion higher range is needed.
Right, this might come across like a rant, so before I start, let me make it clear that I respect EVERYONE's views. I am not looking to start a fight. OK, with that out there, let me say...
Oh, come on! This is the typical blue sky argument that the most ardent green supporters have been espousing for years - and it hasn't worked, and never will!
Do you honestly think that people sit in traffic jams on the motorways daily because they enjoy it? Because it is fun? Because they hate being at home, and would rather be cooped up in a tin box breathing bad air?
With today's level of taxation, fuel prices, road pricing, car prices and congestion people still use the car. Why? Because for many journeys, there is no viable alternative.
I need to visit my clients - I work as a consultant. They pay me £x a day to give them my advice. They expect, when paying me, for me to arrive at their location when they need me. They will not pay for me to spend many hours travelling in 100-mile chunks across the country, recharging as I go. If you know of a way to universally change those attitudes immediately while at the same time implementing the required infrastructure, while not requiring martial law (!) - let's hear it.
Now, as I hope my previous posts demonstrate, I am environmentally responsible - I drive a vehicle that is low emissions, high MPG, and I avoid using it when I can. I am switching to an e-bike for my commute when in the office. I travel by train when I can. But many of the journeys I need to make for work have to be car only, because they cannot be reached easily by train or alternative. That's also ignoring the fact that most car alternatives are FAR more expensive, including the train.
But, effecting change is a GRADUAL process. You cannot ever expect to get support to throw out an entire country's infrastructure overnight, expect people to radically change their lifestyles (especially if they perceive it as being for the worse). I typically find that people who promote such approaches have the luxury of having a particular lifestyle that suits those approaches. Bully for them - but they can't just impose those values on everyone else, unless you want to live in a dictatorship rather than democracy.
I say these things in full knowledge that we may be creating environmental catastrophe - but if you really want to effect change, you have to gently ease people in to it, while arguing strongly for it. Our politicians have never had the will to even start.
So I'd rather see the Toyota Prius approach - proving that a car can be more emission sensitive than it's peers, while retaining the usefulness of the tool. Let's focus on getting us switched to an environmentally aware, make small steps attitude and economy - then you have a platform on which to build more decisive change. And maybe, those small steps in the meantime will start to make a difference.
It does make me laugh - one car manufacturer invest billions in research on a vehicle that is a definitive environmental improvement, and then rather than leaving it as a concept car, actually puts it in to production and starts to apply the same technology to the rest of their range - and instead of embracing it as an intial success, improvement and a vindication of their argument, the green lobby poo poos it as not good enough and continues to live in a fantasy world. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
The problem with many really ardent environmentalists (and I am not accusing anyone on this forum of this) is that they have a political agenda that goes far beyond pure environemental respect. They actually dislike industrialisation, mechanisation and many of the trappings of our Western society. They seem to favour a far more agrarian lifestyle, and want to sweep our society away in its favour. Here's the news, people - that stuff is hard work, harder than any of us have ever known. Go and ask an African farmer scratching a living for his family fifteen hours a day what he thinks of it! Ask him if he wants to reject the car, when he needs to get his crops to market or his sick child to hospital!
It is this radical subtext that has lead to marginalisation of environmental issues in the political debate - and that is to our worldwide detriment.
OK, rant mode off. I just am saddened that during my lifetime the Green movement has not been more effective by being realistic in their arguments and proposals - perhaps if they had we might live in a better world today.
Ah, you really have to admire the American motoring lobby groups - they have done a FANTASTIC job with their negative hybrid publicity. They have done this to continue to encourage US car buyers to buy gas guzzling, high emission vehicles because it is cheaper for them to make those than to do anything environmentally responsible.
