grimsprice said:
Nmil-ek said:
Heres the thing it requires 4 people, that along makes it inferior to any motor powered car from the looks of it the passangers aid in the steering and this is a family marketed idea? Would you want your kids with control of a vehicle on roads surrounded by motors going 30+? Or do you think kids could row for an hour long drive, it's a pretty stupid idea no way whatsoever a way forward, we need to be looking at alternative fuels that are easier produced and have more longevity.
... or... you know.... we could build electric cars. LIKE WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO FOR A DECADE.
A lot of talk on this subject.
The big problem with this is both making them affordable enough to do a rapid changeover in technology AND also being able to perform a massive rehaul of the infrastructure.
Electric Cars still require charging and such, which would mean building a network of charging stations the way we have gas stations now. Until we had these in place, even if people could afford the cars they would be of limited use/range without the abillity to keep them charged. So basically at the same time you develop the cars to the point of getting them into people's hands your going to also need to get a LOT of people to invest in building an infrastucture for the technology which has to be there before the everyman will buy one.
Right now buying a car is a massive purchuse as well, with people spending YEARS or even a decade paying off even a low-mid end vehicle. Partially because of greed, partially because of goverment charges, and partially because it's a nessecity. The bottom line is that people can't just decide by the millions "oh hey, I'm going to go buy an electric car", and of course without this guarantee nobody is going to build charging stations.
Then of course what do we do with the current gas infrastructure? Even if we build an electric one, we've got all these pipes and gas lines running under everything for those
fuel stations. Most of these stations have large tanks under the concrete, and over a period of generations it's going to be rough to figure out where all the pipes are or go. Your talking about a process where your going to have to rip up massive sections of ground and doubtlessly high traffic roads (which is why you had a gas station there) to remove this stuff. You abandon old gas pipes and tanks and just build over them, your asking for trouble. If these businesses are closing due to the changeover (ie the oil/gas companies are going out of business) they certainly aren't going to finance this, which means the cost goes to you, the tax payer not to mention dealing with the pure havoc it's going to create.
People tend to forget these kinds of things when talking about massive technological revolution. It's not JUST the gas companies and cartels in the way, there are practical problems as well.
Not to mention the fact that electicity doesn't come from nowhere, there are only so many practical ways of generating it. To put a msssive infrastructure of this kind into play, we'd probably wind up having to finally replace the US's antiquidated power grid. The reason we don't do this is not just money, but again because of the fact that it would involve cutting power to large swaths of the country during replacement, massive dismantlement, and then of course replacement. Telling some major city with all the businesses there that it's going to be without power for six months to two years while they dismantle the power system and build a new one isn't going to go over too well, and cause all kind of havoc. The fact that there are no practical ways around this (despite what people might want to think) is a good part of why it hasn't happened.
Then of course you've got NIMBY sentiment. For all talk about hydroelectic, wind based, and solar power, all of those methods have massive disadvantages and have not been tested in this sheer scale. The only workable thing we have is nuclear power, and while it's perfectly safe overall, you'll find that nobody wants one in their back yard even if they agree with it overall. This means that on top of everything else, the goverment is going to need to inevitably go gangbusters on certain people to construct plants. So just imagine for example Uncle Sam coming in and telling you that you will be without power "until we're done" as they tear down all the power lines, build a nuclear plant a few miles away from your house, and then reconstruct a new infrastructure which among other things will make it more viable for electic car charging.
Many will of course disagree with me, and that's fine. But this is stgill pretty much what it would take. Honestly, I'd be all for it since it has to happen eventually (we might as well get it over with) tech needs to move forward. However I honestly think MOST people, especially the left wingers who support "Clean energy' for moral reason, would blanch at the realities of what it would entail, which would involve stepping on a LOT of human rights "Chinese Style" to "Get er done" Larry The Cable Guy style. A lot of left wingers who want all these changes seem to think they can be achieved by waving a magic wand and thinking good thoughts, without anyone being inconveinenced and no prices to pay.
