Is Salem likely to see many electric cars?

Like the jewel-encrusted bras that you sometimes see discussed in the press, with a picture of a supermodel showing off the goods, the Tesla is all about keeping the masses fixated on the unattainable to distract them from reconsidering existing arrangements. You are as likely to own a Tesla or equivalent as you are to own one of those bras. Image via Wikipedia

A net-friend asks why, with all the hype about electric cars and wondrous new batteries, Salem would want to invest in transit systems limited by rails or electric overhead power supply lines. Here's part of the answer.

If you didn't go read that fascinating article (really), then here's my cut at summarizing it to reply:

As an engineer, I am quite skeptical of the hype around the modern variants of electric cars, which are unlikely ever to be affordable for the masses, or an efficient solution to moving many people. Had we stayed electric in the first place and never become accustomed to driving hundreds of miles at 75+ mph, we might have had a shot at a saner transport system, but we didn't. Absent a price on carbon that puts all driving out of reach for most people (and where does the will to do that come from in a society that insists on being ferried in a vehicle for all trips more than a quarter mile), we're never going to be able to afford mass adoption of electric cars the way we did with gas powered ones.

You might find this excellent writeup about the history of auto battery technology advances interesting:

It ends thus:

We cannot have it all

Of course, there are many more possibilities than the two scenario's outlined here. It would not kill us to drive at speeds of 20 mph, on the contrary, but there is so much potential in downsizing the automobile that we don't have to go all the way back to the early 1900s to get a decent range.

We could tune them up a bit so that they could get 60 km/h or 40 mph (only sligthly faster than the 1911 Babcock Electric Roadster pictured on the right) and accelerate just fast enough to leave a crime scene or flee from a mad elephant.

At 60 km/h or 40 mph a trip of 600 kilometres or 400 miles would take 10 hours, instead of 5 hours at a common motorway speed. This does not sound like the end of the world. It's definitely a whole lot faster than going by foot (120 hours) or by bike (30 hours). We could also equip the Trev with a somewhat larger battery so that it gets a better mileage at the expense of a somewhat lower speed. Or, yet another possibility: keep the Trev like it is but limit its speed to that of the Fritchle.

If we want more speed, we have to sacrifice range. If we want more range, we have to sacrifice speed. If we want to keep the (energy) costs of the charging infrastructure within reasonable limits, we have to sacrifice speed or size. The lesson to be learned here, is that we cannot have it all: range, speed and size. And yet, that's what we are trying to do.

And that is the a basic truth --- that we cannot have it all. With the already-begun Great Contraction at work, we're not going to see mass adoptions of electric cars, and we're going to see a lot fewer people in gasoline-powered cars on the roads.

Of course, if we wait too long to restore a functioning mass transport system it will be too late -- we will have neither. The time for major infrastructure projects is drawing to a close for a long time, possibly forever. An energy-tight society is not a wealthy one; add the stresses and costs imposed by climate disruption and you see that we are unlikely to be able to afford private autos for many folks.

We can afford mass transit though, if we hurry.