What interests me about this scheme is that it hints at a possible solution to the problems currently associated with the electric car. The mass roll out of the electric car is dogged by several persistent problems. There’s the limited battery life, high maintenance costs for the battery, as well as charge times in the order of hours (by contrast one can refuel a petrol powered car in minutes and a LPG tank in under an hour). The idea of using electric cars plugged into the grid to even out the peaks and troughs in a renewables dominated electric grids is often touted, and this article here from the IMECHE suggests the basic concept is sound (given a few changes to how the grid is managed and power distributed of course!). However, the effect that such a proposal would have on the battery life of cars (given that they’ll be being charged and discharged much more frequently this leads to a slight increase in the wear out rate of batteries) has not been adequately addressed.

But to me the “problems” with the electric car, or indeed hydrogen fuel cell powered cars for that matter, is only a problem so long as we remain wedded to the idea that the global car fleet need to be privately owned by individuals. That is to say that we are expected to purchase and maintain a car for ones own personal use, even though it spends 80-90% of its life parked up by the side of the road gathering rust. By contrast if we all share our cars via some sort of city wide rental system (not unlike the proposed Paris system except potentially for longer periods), or rent them of off a private company, then many of the above problems simply disappear. The maintenance and replacement issues with batteries become an issue for the car leasing organisation not the user. While they will ultimately need to pass on such costs to the end user, such costs will be greatly reduced due to the benefits of improved economies of scale. In essence it becomes more of a long term business decision, and assuming that they keep the car in more regular use and hired out (than a privately owned car that again spends 80-90% of its working life idle) , that should reduce those costs to a reasonable level.

The problem often highlighted regarding the lengthy charge times for electric cars (in this article a BBC reporter takes 4 days to drive a electric car from London to Edinburgh, largely due to the amount of time the car had to spend charging up the battery) also becomes less of a problem if they’re merely being rented temporarily than it being one’s own personal vehicle, as presumably there will always be charged up cars available on every street corner (might get a bit harder at peak times, but you’d be a fool to assume you can get a car at such times if not booked in advance, much like you’d a fool to think you’ll get a taxi just by putting you’re hand up at peak rush hour). You simply pick the one nearest to you, tap your fob from the leasing company on special panel (which unlocks the car and charges you’re account) and hop in, and plug it back it when you’re done. The issue mentioned above with regard to an increased wear in batteries due to using the batteries to balance out the gird is also resolved. The leasing company hires out the car’s and their batteries to the power utilities, who would presumably compensate them for the increased battery wear in return, as well as this providing a useful revenue stream for the leasing company to further reduce the hiring costs to the customers. Similarly the customer is rewarded if he keeps the car he’s hired plugged in while its parked up with say a discount in the rental costs, or maybe free parking spaces. Suddenly the electric car sound like a much more viable idea when you look at it like this.

Also the other problem with electric cars, that being the current limited range of such vehicles, becomes less of an issue. The vast majority of journeys undertaken by people today are less than 25 miles (at least in Europe anyway, America’s a slightly different kettle of fish) easily within the range of an electric vehicle. But its this “threat” of the occasional long journey that enforces the purchase of petrol powered cars instead. Currently with electric vehicles via the private motoring option you would be required to own two cars, one electric and one IC engined, which isn’t really convenient for someone with limited funds (i.e. can barely afford one car!) or parking facilities. Now, with shared ownership, if you suddenly find yourself needing to go on a long journey one that cannot be performed either by public transport or an electric car, you simply opt instead to hire one of a small fleet of IC or hybrid engined cars instead.

Such a scheme of collective car ownership would also solve a number of other problems. For example, I highlighted in a prior post the issue of “planned obsolescence” where products, notably cars, are often specifically designed with short operating lives. This is done both in order to increase sales (shorter operating life means demand for more cars), but also because consumers by and large demand products that are cheap and which they don’t actually intend hanging onto for very long. Obviously for a car leasing firm the purchase cost of a car matters little, it’s the overall lifetime cost of ownership that’s important. They will thus purchase cars with longer operating lives, more fuel efficient engines, lower maintenance costs and ultimately lower disposal costs, in preference to cars with a lower initial purchase costs but shorter lives (and thus higher life time costs). Now if a large portion of the motor cars worldwide are being bought by such organisations, then obviously the manufacturers will quickly change they’re tune and start building cars with longer operating lives, that are easier to maintain and more fuel efficient. This will greatly reduce the amount of resources that needs to get put into building cars in the first place and the pollution this causes, nevermind the benefits of reduced air pollution and elimination of tailpipe emissions that electric cars already provide. Also given that leasing companies will be trying to keep their cars constantly in use (or parked up and charging), the end result is you will need substantially less cars to support a nation’s motorists, which brings all sorts of benefits (less parking space required, less road building, less accidents, less thefts, etc.)

Also there’s been much talk recently about redressing the imbalance that is the absurd subsidy society gives to private motoring (in terms of the government paying for building the roads, maintaining and policing them, providing fire and emergency services cover, paying for the costs of climate change, and securing oil resources, but getting only a fraction of all of this back in road and petrol taxes). Congestion charges or a system of road pricing is often raised as fair and egalitarian way of resolving this issue. However, the problem with both is always implementing it (who in their right mind is going to fit a government GPS tracker to their car just so “big brother” can track and tax you!). Obviously, if the majority of cars on the roads are leased from companies (or local councils) it’s a simple matter of fitting them all with GPS units from day one.

Perhaps more critically this idea of “national car sharing” also helps to square the circle as far as public transport. Let be realistic for a minute. Public transport is a very efficient way of moving lots of people from A to B, but what if you want to go to C and live at D? Consider, its possible to go from London (Kings Cross) to say, Achnasheen (a small rural railway station in the middle of the Scottish highlands) in 10 hrs and 15 minutes, including stops (according to national rail enquires). Driving that same distance (596 miles) is doable in 10 hrs 25 minutes, according to Google maps, excluding stops (and to be realistic driving that far in one day, nevermind non-stop wouldn’t be a good idea, not unless you want to risk falling asleep at the wheel!). However, the problem is what do you do when you get to Achnasheen? Suppose you’re ultimate destination is down some remote highland glen or say, Torridon, a small village about 15 miles away down a very scenic valley surrounded by mountains (some of the oldest exposed rocks in the British isles in fact). There is no direct bus from there to Torridon. And in any event the timetable says you’d be arriving at 19:15 at night. If you’re a keen cyclist (like me) you could try biking it (but its fairly hilly!) but that’s not much good if you’re 60 years old or with kids and have lots of luggage. Furthermore getting bikes on trains these days isn’t easy. A taxi would be difficult to arrange and likely expensive. And of course you need get back to the station for the return journey to London! And what happens if you get back to the station and find the train has been delayed or cancelled or you simply missed it? And suppose that rather than living in central London, you live in a small Cothswold’s village and you thus have the same sort of problems at the other end!

Consequently it’s no surprise why so many people choose to get in their cars and drive the entire length of such a journey, even though strictly speaking a car is only necessary for the first and last 5-10% of the journey distance. This is why even in situations where it’s cheaper to use the train than drive, many people still opt to drive. Indeed on that point I would note that the cheapest single ticket for that case study journey I mentioned above was £173.50 while Google quotes an estimated driving cost of £114.40! The reason why the car triumphs over public transport every time has nothing to do with anything you’ll hear Jeremy Clarkson fluster about (or faking on Top Gear), it has everything to do with convenience and the assurance that you have a car sitting there ready to take you wherever you want to go at the drop of a hat.

But car sharing would allow us to square this circle. Now when I get off the train at 19:15, I simply hop in a car, drive onwards to my final destination, and plug it back into the nearest charge point. When I’m done, I hop in a car drive back to the station, plug it back in, fall asleep on the train, and hop in another car the other side which takes me home. Now nevermind cost, that’s the sort of system with a level of convince that stands some chance of temping people into travelling more by public transport. And if the usage of public transport goes up, then ticket prices begin to fall substantially (look at Ryanair, ever wonder why they can offer flights for a euro? Its because they make sure their planes are constantly in the air and as fully loaded as possible…oh! and btw I’m not related to these guys, “Ryan” is a very common Irish name so don’t e-mail me complaining about the time they lost you’re bags!).

Now some people will inevitably say, wait give up my own personal car for some sort of “collectivised” car ownership system…sounds a bit commie! Nobody’s suggesting we ban private cars or anything like that (well, not immediately anyway!). Inevitably the above system will not suit everyone’s needs or tastes. A travelling salesman (in say solar panels) or a farmer in a remote rural area, or a doctor or a plumber (plus all his tools!) will all probably find that they need they’re own personal and privately owned vehicle. And indeed while we’re at it, building electric vehicles capable of meeting these people’s needs would be technically challenging, nevermind electrifying long distance trucks, aircraft or cargo ships. Inevitably quite a bit of our transport network will still have to remain fuelled by oil in the short term, then probably biofuels taking over later, possibility eventually being superseded by hydrogen vehicles longer term. No doubt some petrol heads with more money than sense will still want they’re boys toys and I’m quite sure Ferrari and Porsche will still be around to satisfy their needs (i.e. sell them over-priced “anatomical extensions”). Although they may find, given that the welfare rug of public subsidy has been pulled from underneath them, such private car ownership will now be somewhat more expensive. But for the vast majority of us such a car sharing system would offer numerous benefits and advantages.

I would finally point out that robotic car technology, that being cars that can drive themselves, is progressing at quite a pace. One could see a convergence in the future between improving electric car technology and artificial intelligence, which could ultimately us all permanently relegated to the passenger seats. Indeed the BBC has another video here about a scheme using driverless pods in Heathrow airport, although these run on dedicated tracks. I’ve been hearing about such PRT systems for quite sometime, and while I’m not entirely convinced about them yet, certainly they could figure quite significantly in the future. If the price could be reduced and these pods developed such that they could run on the road network (even if only for short distances) this would truly close the loop between public transport and personal automotive transport.

Robotic cars offer numerous advantages, notably the fact that they don’t get drunk or distracted by the kids fighting in the back and run over granny’s, they provide better fuel economy and increased engine life (robots aren’t constantly sitting on the brakes and then speeding up or forgetting to change gear, etc.), they don’t get lost and refuse to look at a map, plus you can run robotic cars in bumper to bumper traffic at 70 mph!

Obviously if machines are going to start driving cars it makes little sense for us as individuals to own them anymore, far better to delegate such responsibilities and the maintenance of such vehicles (to avoid some very literal blue screen of death moments!) to a suitable authority (private company or government backed leasing scheme).

Bottom line, if the automobile is to survive the end of the age of oil, we have to adapt our car ownership system to suit the needs of the technologies that replaces oil, not try to adapt the technology to our peculiar and outdated traditions.

Photo credit: lammersch

The car industry is currently undergoing a green revolution, with a number of exciting new technologies vying to challenge the predominance of petrol and diesel and put an end to the internal combustion engine’s negative effects on the environment.

For many years now, private cars have been a favourite target of environmental campaigners, mainly due to the harmful emissions that all internal-combustion engines release into the atmosphere. Their effect was illustrated starkly several times in the 1970s when ‘car-mad’ cities like Los Angeles and London were frequently shrouded in a thick, polluting smog. Car manufacturers have been working on improving their products’ environmental credentials for quite some time now. The most significant developments of the last quarter of a century include the rollout of unleaded fuel, as well as the mandatory fitment of catalytic converters, which remove many of the most harmful elements of vehicle exhaust fumes, to all new cars. But as the 21st century dawned, talk of diminishing oil supplies and the ongoing threat of global warming has incentivised both carmakers and governments to accelerate development of the technologies that will one day take over completely from those in the cars for sale today, which remain dependent on fossil fuels.

Hybrid cars, as the name suggests, represent a half-way house between traditional petrol- and diesel-engined models and the next generation of electrically propelled vehicles. Essentially, a hybrid car is one that combines an internal-combustion engine with an electric motor, powered by large batteries, to provide propulsion. There are two distinct forms of hybrid drivetrain: parallel and series. In a parallel hybrid, both the combustion engine and electric motor are connected to the transmission. Both engines are capable of powering the car, either at the same time or separately. In a series hybrid, only the electric motor is connected to the transmission, and it is solely responsible for propulsion. The combustion engine is connected to a generator to recharge the electric motor’s batteries; it is not responsible for any motion. There are already a number of hybrid cars for sale right now from various manufacturers, with the most popular and recognisable being Toyota’s Prius, now in its third generation. Japanese rival Honda has recently launched its second-generation Insight hybrid, and Toyota’s upmarket brand Lexus offers hybrid versions of its luxury SUVs and executive saloons. These are all parallel hybrids, but General Motors in the US is currently developing the Chevrolet Volt, which should be among the first series hybrid cars to go on sale to the general public.

In the longer term, however, it is likely that hybrids, which still require some fossil fuel, will be superseded by exclusively electric-powered cars. Many governments worldwide are undertaking initiatives to get electric cars for sale to the public as soon as possible. Indeed, a Norwegian minister has proposed banning the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars from 2015! The main obstacle to the growth of electric cars is the fact that their batteries need to be recharged with mains electricity, but seeing as they cannot yet store enough energy for long-distance travel, extensive recharging infrastructure will have to be put in place before the use of electric cars becomes widespread. This is something governments will have to make happen, while the manufacturers concentrate on prolonging the life of batteries and improving their recharging speed. Governments will also have to ensure that their national power grids produce electricity using environmentally friendly resources such as water, wind or the sun.

But electric cars won’t have the roads of the future all to themselves. A rival technology has emerged in the shape of hydrogen fuel cells, arguably the most groundbreaking method of alternative propulsion currently being developed. A hydrogen-powered car has a fuel tank that is filled with hydrogen in the same way a petrol-engined car’s tank is filled with petrol. The hydrogen reacts with oxygen inside the engine to produce electricity and water, which in turn power the car’s electric motor. The Honda FCX Clarity is probably the most widely known hydrogen fuel-cell-powered car, as it has been on limited trial sale in the United States and Japan since late last year. It’s powered by a 134hp, 57-litre hydrogen fuel-cell stack, and also uses a 288-volt lithium-ion battery. On a full tank of hydrogen, the Clarity can travel up to 280 miles, and, most importantly, the only waste product it produces is water. As with electric vehicles, the growth of hydrogen-fuelled cars is dependent on a network of suitable refuelling points being rolled out.

With development of all these innovative technologies currently proceeding at breakneck pace, it looks likely that it won’t be too long before none of the cars for sale on dealers’ forecourts have internal-combustion engines under the bonnet, something which will make a massive difference to the impact humans currently have on the planet’s environment.

The Swedish company Flygbussarna (shortly translated to The Flight Busses), who offers bus services to and from all the major airports in Sweden, has made this very cool advertisement installation next to a highway in Sweden.

The installation is made out of 50 cars stacked together and painted to look like one of Flygbussarna’s busses. It is designed to advertise Flygbussarna’s bus services and to highlight the fact that it’s much more environmentally friendly to travel by bus than in a car.

“50 cars or 1 coach? If everyone travelled with public transport instead of by car the environment would be much better off. So don’t just take the coach because it’s cheaper – take it to reduce your carbon emissions.”

This installation is part of an advertising campaign with the slogan “it’s smart to be cheap” and will be featured on Flygbussarna’s “anti car” homepage.

Check out the slideshow:

Also check out this picture, taken by the Press-Office City of Münster (Germany), which demonstrates the amount of space required to transport the same number of passengers by car, bus or bicycle.

Photo credit: Hamed Saber

Even if you drive a petrol-engined car rather than a hybrid vehicle, you can still do your bit for the environment by using less fuel, a practice that will save you cash at the same time. You just need to pay more attention to the details…

Have a look at your tyres…
Did you know that a single tyre that is under-inflated by two pounds of pressure can increase your car’s fuel consumption by 1 percent? And you have four of them, so the tyres alone can increase your spending on fuel by 4 percent. So be sure to check your tyres’ air pressure at regular intervals – most garages have an air pressure gauge and pump you can use for free.

Make your car lose some weight…
This doesn’t mean you have to rid your car of panels, seats and your spare tyre, but you’re bound to be carrying around some unnecessary weight in your vehicle – we all do it. Take a quick look in your boot and remove anything that isn’t strictly necessary – for example, if you won’t get a chance to drop off those empty bottles at the recycling centre until the weekend, store them in your garage until then. And what about that roof box or bicycle rack which you haven’t used in a while? All these objects add more weight to your car and make it burn more fuel. For every 5kg of weight you get rid of, you can reduce the engine’s fuel consumption by an average of 0.1 percent, so give your car a spring clean-out today…

Keep an eye on your speedo…
Maintaining your speed on motorways is the best way to lower your car’s thirst for fuel. When you drive fast, more fuel is needed to combat the increasing air resistance. A good solution would be to keep a steady pace of 65mph (105km/h). If you decide to drive at the maximum speed of 75mph (120km/h), be aware that your fuel consumption will increase by 20 percent! Another point to consider is city driving. Speeding towards stop signs and traffic lights needlessly and then braking rapidly wastes fuel as well. By pressing the accelerator and brakes more frequently than necessary, you are using more petrol than you would if you drove at a steady pace.

Let your engine rest…
Turn your engine off when you are not on the move. Research shows that if you are stationary for more than 10 seconds, the car will actually burn less if you stop the engine and then restart it. So, if you are going to be sitting at a traffic light for a minute or two or you are going to wait for your passenger to arrive, you can save some fuel by turning your engine off, as an idling car can burn as much as 4 litres of fuel per hour.

Listen to traffic reports…
Pay closer attention to traffic reports on the radio before leaving your home or office, as these tips may enable you to choose a less congested route that will not only be more eco-friendly, but will also save you time and reduce stress.

Clean your car’s air filter…
The air filter prevents dirt from entering the engine of your car. Driving your vehicle with a dirty filter can reduce its fuel economy by 10 percent! Luckily, this problem can be easily avoided. The air filter is easy to clean, so you can do it yourself regularly, and it should also get cleaned each time you service the car. In time, the air filter will suffer wear and tear and need to be replaced, but this is a relatively small outlay.

Get fit…
And last but not least, you could walk or cycle instead of using your car, particularly if your destination is close by. As the weather improves as we come into summer, consider getting some fresh air while keeping fit, saving money and reducing your carbon footprint by avoiding unnecessary car journeys.

photo credit: Nrbelex

George Monbiot says that the motor industry has long sabotaged eco-innovations and that they are now demanding billions to cut its carbon emissions. The green subsidy for car makers, Monbiot says, is just a disguised corporate bail-out.

“Their sabotage of green technology has been both subtle and comprehensive. The film Who Killed The Electric Car? shows how the manufacturers, working with oil companies and corrupt officials, sank California’s attempt to change vehicle technologies. Having bumped off battery power, they persuaded the federal government to pour money instead into hydrogen vehicles, aware that the technological hurdles are so high that a cheap, mass-produced model might never be possible. Electric cars, by contrast, have been ready for the mass market for almost a century. The $1.2bn that the US government is spending on research and development for hydrogen cars – like the €2bn pledged to the same quest by the European Union – is a subsidy for avoiding technological change.”

Continue to read over at the Guardian.

How would the world look like? Would we have a war in Iraq? Would we have a better climate? Would we have less terrorism? Would the US economy be in a better shape?

Chris Pummer, from MarketWatch, says that the increased gas prices in USA should be celebrated.

“Americans should be celebrating rather than shuddering over the arrival of $4-a-gallon gasoline. We lived on cheap gas too long, failed to innovate and now face the consequences of competing for a finite resource amid fast-expanding global demand.”

He also believes that $8-a-gallon gas would do the USA, and the rest of the world good.

“A further price rise as in Europe to $8 a gallon – or $200 and more to fill a large SUV’s tank – would be a catalyst for economic, political and social change of profound national and global impact. We could face an economic squeeze, but it would be the pain before the gain.”

But let’s get back to the question I asked first. How would the world look like if USA had similar gas prices as those in Europe?

Well, besides the war in Iraq and terrorism, we don’t really have to wait to see how the world could look like. We can see it already.

SUVs and other gas-guzzling cars have dropped enormous in sales, as well as in value, lately. It’s like they have been put on the endangered species list.

“If gas prices stay where they are at or continue to rise, the body-on frame SUV is an endangered species and the pickup truck as a personal car is an endangered species.”

“When they find out what you think their truck is worth, they think you’re trying to rip them off or something. Small cars are gone within a week; SUVs are sitting here since last summer.”

Americans are already now leaving their cars at home in favour of public transportation or car-pools.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recently released their March 2008 report and it shows a massive decline in driving. In contrast to the trend the past 25 years the 4.4% drop sure says a lot.

“2008 marks the first time since 1979 that there has been a drop in miles travelled in over the month of March. This drop corresponds to 11 billion less miles traveled, according to FHWA. Over the first quarter of 2008, greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector have also dropped 9 million metric tons compared to past years, something that no amount of political posturing has yet to accomplish.”

Let’s hope that the gas prices keeps increasing but also that our politicians helps to ease the pain that comes “before the gain” with smart and long lasted solutions (and not short-sighted and stupid ones).

Image credit: Futureatlas.com. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution license.

Thousands of people flocked to the NY International Auto Show at the Javits Center on Saturday. In the midst of it all, Lady Liberty ended her 100 year “spectacularly combustible love affair” with the automobile. Lady Liberty said, “Frankly, this relationship has just gotten to be much more work than it’s worth. My health, liberty and freedom have suffered greatly, and now I hope that my new relationships will finally give me security and happiness.” Then Reverend Billy officiated her marriage to “Mr. Transit” and the Stop Shopping Gospel Choir sang in celebration.

Video after the jump:

You can also watch the video on StreetFilms.org.

Did you know that about 25% of the entire size of Los Angeles is made up of roads, parking places and other areas designed for cars?

Also check out this picture, taken by the Press-Office City of Münster (Germany). It demonstrates the amount of space required to transport the same number of passengers by car, bus or bicycle.

It’s really mind-boggling.

Image credit: Marshall Astor. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.