First, you’ve joined the ranks of doubters who knew that personal computers would never be possible because of the cost of existing computers.
Second, battery technology, where most of the cost is, is improving rapidly.
Third, the average miles driven in the U.S. on a daily basis is less than 50 miles a day.
Fourth, you will see plug-in electrics from major manufacturers within the next couple of years, long before anyother technology becomes viable.
fifth, read my article on America’s Right … I put it there on purpose because conservatives are blind to the possibility of EVs and yet, they are and will continue to be our best alternative.
sixth, your off on the actual out-of-pocket costs of the Tesla sedan, it’s being marketed at just under $50,000. This is less than half the price of the roadster, and only the second, not including the earlier GM experiment, freeway worthy EV … it looks like the price is coming down pretty fast.
I think the problem with the article is that it discounts the effect of mass transit in city layout. A dense city packs in much more per mile. Mass transit makes that density possible. So measure per mile may not be the best statistic. Perhaps energy per average trip would be more instructive.
Given the advertising that rail can move 1 ton of freight 400 miles on a gallon of fuel, I was surprised not to see a better showing for rail in the article. Perhaps that figure doesn’t map well into moving people in a stop-go urban environment.
I disagree. The reason battery technology will improve dramatically in the next few years is that better technology is critical if the alterntive energy sources are going to be viable. I admit that I tend to be technological optimist; however check out these links:
First, I don’t know of any battery-powered SUVs on the streets of the US. Some hybrids exist but they are not battery-powered.
You then said:
I’m usually a critic of Cecil’s but it’s pretty obvious that he’s just making a snide comment here, not anything that people should take literally.
I’m much more of a technological pessimist than you are. Electric vehicles are not the future. They have way too many problems to overcome. And that’s in addition to the failing electric infrastructure. Please don’t point me to links that tell me that somebody has a better battery in the laboratory. I’ve been reading those articles for decades.
You want to get electric vehicles on the road? Pass a stiff gas tax. Barring that the future is not electric.
Hopefully, and I mean that in the best way, I will be proven right. We should know if there is significant technology and interest in the next five years. However, I’m definitely not advocating stoping oil drilling, gasoline and diesel production, nuclear energy, etc. However to make anything else viable we will need better batteries.
I’m assuming the vehicles quoted are at peak or at least average speed. So disregard this drunkin’ post if that is the case. Do those numbers change if you factor in time waiting at stoplights and general traffic? I know our Chicago transit system doesn’t run as fast as we want, but the electicity is not transferred (for the most part) unless we’re in motion. But those 10k+ cars are sitting in traffic on the xpressway for, in my commute, at least 20 min. each trip, every day. Doesn’t it take more btus to accelerate after those endless stops than, as the man said in an even flow?
Yes, this is the first posting that makes the point that congestion reduces fuel efficiency enormously. My town, has, in its wisdom, put four way stops at 90% of the intersections and augmented this with speed bumps.
Since the road building orgy of the last 50 years seems to have played out, then fuel economy for gasoline powered cars (and diesel busses, unless they have dedicated rights of way) can only get worse.
I keep reading about battery breakthroughs, but somehow they never seem to pan out. Batteries seem to be inherently messy and energy density low.
Much as I like light rail, I think the best way for transit to go is electric busses (what we called trackless trolleys when I was growing up). They are nearly as efficient as trolleys (rubber tires have more friction than steel on steel), more flexible (no one car stalled on the track–or worse delivering oil, as used to happen when I took trolleys) and much cheaper to build. What is needed are less polluting ways to generate electricity. My favorite is fast breeder reactor that uses a much higher percentage of the nuclear fuel and leaves mainly short half life waste at the end.
My MPSIMS - How about the idling and crawling of all those vehicles stuck behind a slowly moving, frequently stopping, bus on city streets? I’ve wondered how much their efficiency is lowered by the efficiency of the bus ahead of them.
I agree with your general point that comparing light rail, or a city bus, to highway driving is unfair, and it’s proper to use city driving estimates. Una posted in here that the calculations for a car implied about 20 mpg on average, so I think it is accounted for. 20 mpg seems a fair estimate for city driving.
They’re pretty much at the “Spirit of St. Louis” stage. Lindbergh needed a flying fuel tank to get to Paris in '27. Today you’d need a ton of batteries to drive serious distances without recharging.
Also, one big point that **Cecil **missed - even if the difference between BTUs per passenger mile for buses/trains are negligible - in fact, even if they are less efficient - it still makes environmental sense, this coming Monday, to take a bus or train instead of your car,.
It’s because of the added passenger effect again. The bus tomorrow *will *be going - it will burn X gallons. If you take the bus, it will burn X+.1 gallons (for instance). Your car will burn zero gallons. If you drive, the bus burns X gallons, and you burn .5.
It’s easy to see with carpooling too - if you drive a car that gets 30 mpg, and carpool with someone who gets 20 mpg, you’re still better off carpooling with that person in their car, and splitting the gas, than driving your own more efficient car.
Even if the average BTUs per mile is more for a bus or a train than for your car, you save fossil fuels for the earth by taking public transportation.
I’m largely a science/tech ignoramus, and have little to add to the discussion in terms of analysis of the facts and claims made by anyone. I do feel obliged, however, to point out what I perceive as a potential blind spot in Unca Cecil’s argumentation.
It seems to me that Cecil is demonstrating a smidgen of inconsistency in his rhetoric. Note the following two quotes [emphasis in bold is mine]:
…and…
So Cecil, out of one side of his mouth, is pooh-poohing the forward-thinking projections made by O’Toole, only to follow the exact same approach a few paragraphs down.
O’Toole appears–from the limited context provided by this quote–to be arguing that we should take future energy trends into consideration in establishing current transportation policies, or at least making personal transportation decisions in the present. That for all the world to me seems identical to what Cecil is advocating when he says, “[W]e have to make bets now about what kind of lifestyles the energy mix of the future is going to support.”
Am In the only one who sees this as a small problem?
p.s. Be it known, I’m all for wise energy use, and I agree completely with Cecil’s take on this issue. I’m not of the climate-change-denying, gas-guzzling ilk who argue against anything and everything related to progressive energy technologies and policies.
Your argument is quite simplistic in a harmful way.
First, you indicate fuel efficiency per passenger mile based on transportation systems as a whole (eg, a city’s subway system). This neglects the idea that transit systems would be much more efficient if they were used closer to their capacity, since clearly many are underutilized (your energy usage numbers are based on studies that use current, average utilization rates - which you don’t mention). So it’s disingenuous to flippantly discuss packed subway cars and rail being only 30% more efficient than cars - if more subway cars were packed, the average efficiency of rail would be much higher than that of cars.
Second, you refer briefly to one advantage of the density-promoting aspect of transit, but you completely overlook the important one: it allows people to travel dramatically shorter distances. This does not affect efficiency, but it does affect total energy use for transportation, which in the end is the important issue, not efficiency. In other words, the argument you make assumes travel distance would be the same regardless of which travel modes cities and regions emphasize.
I think on such an important topic, you have a duty to write a more thorough, well-reasoned article, since people rely on you as an expert.
There is also the fact that more cars = more traffic = longer trips = more energy use per car.
In other words, not only would more people using rail systems greatly increase the efficiency of those systems, it would also increase the efficiency of cars.
That was a fascinating article by Cecil and his able assistant Una. A couple of questions:
What’s the carbon footprint like? Does an electric train in practice beat an internal combustion engine? Presumably the answer varies a lot depending upon the source of power generation (coal vs. natural gas vs. nukes).
Following what Ari S said, does mass transit get a boost by the fact that it’s typically supplemented by walking? Or is it compromised since some commute using multiple buslines which together take a roundabout route?
The marginal cost of an extra rider on a bus or subway with extra room is de minimus, right?
The Toyota RAV4-EV was sold from 1997-2003 - we briefly looked into one when we needed a new car at the end of 2002, but it didn’t seem easily available in S. Ontario
It was in quite limited availability however, but it was a production model from one of the big auto makers.
I would not be surprised if there were places doing modifications to gas SUVs to turn them into electric vehicles on a more custom basis. Here are some links google turns up: