What the future holds

I've made predictions about it before, and will share them with you here: We will not see a viable electric car culture until we also see a way to charge the consumer, per mile driven. Maybe that sounds cynical, but we live in a society that has proven time and again that emerging technology can be stifled if it interferes with a successful status-quo. And right now, the status-quo is a a cripplingly manipulated energy market that is holding onto its power (every pun intended) with a death-grip. There is no room for innovation in a market that fears change.

What I find most interesting is how there seem to be two sides to the political argument essentially using the same reasons to promote two differing ideas about future energy use. One side is excited about renewable energy, seeing it as a way to drop dependence on the limited stock of fossil fuels, while the other looks to finding new sources of fossil fuels closer to home so our dependence on such fuel isn't placed in the hands of other countries. I see it the arguments as extensions of fear, and I think it is important we understand what, ultimately, is causing the fear.

On the former side, the fear is a lack of sustainability. Without adequate resources, the prices go up as supply and demand take their inevitable place in the ongoing paradigm. Looking towards renewable seems to be a ridiculously logical step towards alleviating that fear. The only limitation has been a technology that doesn't satisfy the concept; IE relatively primitive batteries that still have an unfavorable weight/charge ratio, especially in comparison to the perfected fossil-fuel motors. Without a technology that either be comparable to the status-quo or exceed it, the incentive to take a backwards step in productivity just isn't there. What you lose in time and capability just doesn't sufficiently offset the cost of redesigning a working system. So, capitalism wins out. And without a market for the technology, there will be no technological research. Sadly it is like asking for a finished product before paying to have one built. Ask any military contractor if that is a way to achieve innovation and they will have a very succinct answer, I am sure.

On the latter side, the fear is control over a necessary base resource. Basic tenant of capitalism: if you can control the market, then you control the consumer. Many countries produce fossil fuels, and there is huge money in bringing that commodity to market Any hiccups in the production of that fuel is an immediately opening for another supplier to crowbar his way into someone else's customer base. Very dog-eat-dog, where the dogs don't mind taking a chomp out of the hands that buy their fuel as well since it is such a base necessity in this modern world. Electricity is not a luxury anymore, it is a necessity in America. I the summer months we are inundated with reports on how many elderly have died from heat-related injuries due to a lack of electricity, for one reason or another. So, it comes down to buy electricity or die. And since electricity is produced, primarily, by fossil fuels it can be rewritten as "purchase fossil fuels or die". Now THAT is a marketing plan! Why even consider giving up a marketing plan that is so perfectly ingrained in society. In fact, we shouldn't be sending all this money overseas to other suppliers... we should be keeping it for ourselves! Control. There is not fear here of what may happen to the consumer over time, just as there is no compassion by the drug-dealer towards his junkie clientele. There is only the potential rewards of ensuring you are the only drug dealer for this neighborhood.

So, we have a commodity that is vital for sustaining a modern society: energy. And we have two conflicting views on how to address this situation. One side believes it is better to supply society with what it needs efficiently, while the other side believes it is best to capitalize on the situation. Ethics aside, simple human greed beats forward-thinking every day.

But I just read an article about the how the Tesla auto company has installed a few recharge stations in California. The product they have produced is a self-sustaining recharging point that uses solar-power to supply itself with electricity. So... imagine driving around in a electric car and recharging it doesn't cost you a dime. Here's the kicker, though; it will take about a half-hour to recharge your vehicle enough to drive 3 more hours. This is, of course, at the current stage of technology. Since so little research has gone into improving that technology, I doubt it is unrealistic to assume it could improve dramatically. But just think about that for a moment... how far will you drive this next weekend for your vacation? How much to do you expect to pay in gas for the round trip? Would you be willing to add extra drive-time while eliminating all fuel-costs for the trip? I can spend $100 a week driving my truck to work and back, possibly a bit more. Now, imagine that number is $0.00 That's my truck payment being made with the money I would normally spend on gas.

Another interesting green concept is Solar Roads. Basically, you embed a series of solar-panels within roads and highways. The heat is transferred into electricity and reintroduced onto the grid. Parking lots, millions of miles of roadways, not to mention the tops of any building; all these urban surfaces could be generating power as a secondary function. You wouldn't need huge solar arrays out in the desert, because you would have them integrated into your towns. But again, the technology is proving too limited to make this brilliant concept viable.

And I suspect the reason the technology isn't there is because it proposes to replace the cash-cow that is modern energy distribution. Being a benefit to humanity just isn't enough reason to innovate anymore. However, finding a way to make money is. That is why I propose the reason we won't see a more robust electric car market; because the innovations being dreamt up which utilize renewable energy aren't lucrative enough.