History of the electric car

[Mike Sales]

A long and interesting article on changing transport technology, and how new technology bings new problems.

[url]tps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug ... -transport[/url]

Much of the early enthusiasm for the automobile stemmed from its promise to solve the problems associated with horse-drawn vehicles, including noise, traffic congestion and accidents. That cars failed on each of these counts was tolerated because they offered so many other benefits, including eliminating the pollution – most notably, horse manure – that had dogged urban thoroughfares for centuries.

But in doing away with one set of environmental problems, cars introduced a whole set of new ones. The pollutants they emit are harder to see than horse manure, but are no less problematic.

By 1900, sales of steam vehicles had taken a narrow lead: that year, 1,681 steam vehicles, 1,575 electric vehicles and 936 petrol-powered vehicles were sold. Only with the launch of the Olds Motor Works’ Curved Dash Oldsmobile in 1903 did petrol-powered vehicles take the lead for the first time.

All of this suggests that personal-mobility data is likely to become a flashpoint in the future. This may seem like an esoteric concern, but the same could have been said of worries about carbon dioxide emissions, which are just as invisible, at the dawn of the automotive era. And unlike the people of that time, those building and using new mobility services today have the chance to address such concerns before it is too late.

[simonineaston]

A long and interesting article

I've just made a pot of coffee and have arranged the cakes daintily upon a plate...

[rjb]

A long and interesting article

I've just made a pot of coffee and have arranged the cakes daintily upon a plate...

I hope you used a paper doilie.

[Jdsk]

There's an alternative reality in The Alteration where prime movers are completely different... on religious grounds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alteration

Recommended, but only just.

Jonathan

[simonineaston]

Yes a good article. I'm still unsettled. The impending disaster has a unique property, which will set us the most severe challenge. Potential solutions - what I disparagingly refer to as technofiddle - do not appear to take into account that the changes on the horizon are likely to threaten the ability of the planet to support life, at least for us higher animals. Challenges heretofore have been limited in scope to our ability to thrive in a supportive environment. This time, the carpet is to be pulled from under our feet and the challenge will be whether we can continue to survive in a hostile environment at all... most of us won't. It's remotely possible that the very few who have enough resources might hang on by the skin of their teeth, but these will be the super-rich with enough power to buy protection and sustinance. A handful.

oh dear...

[axel_knutt]

the super-rich with enough power to buy protection and sustinance.

Buy from who? Once the global economy collapses there won't be anything to buy.
Read Jared Diamond's Collapse. When climate change forced the collapse of the Greenland Norse civilisation, the solution open to them was to switch from farming, and copy the inuit; but instead of adapting, the rich just barricaded themselves in against the marauding poor, and in so doing their only achievement was to ensure they were the last to starve.

[simonineaston]

Buy from who?

I'm suggesting that the very few left after sustinance and habitable land run out are likely to be the very richest. I acknowledge that traditional economies will collapse as millions die off and tradeable good / services diminish, but I'm suggesting that the super-rich will be amongst the last to die off as they will have had access to essential resources as they dwindle. I don't know how it will all pan out in the last days, but imagine that those left will have bought their way into citadels and whatever the plural of an oasis is...