The Economist: The car of the perpetual future

DURING a keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, the boss of General Motors (GM), Rick Wagoner, unveiled the Cadillac Provoq, a new hydrogen fuel-cell concept car. With a drivetrain emitting only water vapour, a 300-mile range and a top speed of 160kph (100mph), the vehicle, said Mr Wagoner, represented “the promise of truly sustainable transportation”. It was a promise that sounded vaguely familiar.

A decade earlier, in 1998, Mr Wagoner’s predecessor, Jack Smith, told the Detroit auto show that GM had a plan to produce a production-ready fuel-cell vehicle “by 2004 or sooner”. That same year, Ford’s incoming boss, Jacques Nasser, said that he saw fuel-cell cars as being a viable alternative to petrol cars for many people during the course of his career (he was replaced in 2001). And as recently as 2004 California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, rhapsodised about “hydrogen highways” all across the state by 2010.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, Energy, Natural Resources, Science & Technology

7 comments on “The Economist: The car of the perpetual future

  1. Jeffersonian says:

    Like Brazil as a country, it’s the car of the future…and always will be.

  2. DonGander says:

    Where does the Hydrogen come from?

    If you didn’t read all the way to the end, or, just skip to “The trouble with hydrogen” at the end and note the vast quantities of Carbon Dioxide that would be produced to produce the Hydrogen to run our cars! It is so! so funny!

    Don

  3. libraryjim says:

    I still say the government should contract with Disney Corp and construct a nation-wide mono-rail system. At the very least, Florida should do so for travel within the state.

  4. Cennydd says:

    If you want high-speed train service, monorail is the way to go. Easier and quicker to build and maintain, but should be used for passenger service only.

  5. CanaAnglican says:

    #2. Don, Hydrogen production does indeed require electricity. However that electricity, if nuclear-produced, can have low carbon footprint.

  6. DonGander says:

    “However that electricity, if nuclear-produced, can have low carbon footprint.”

    I agree. But there isn’t even any hope for such plans as of now.

    Nuclear would solve several problems – I just doubt that the conversion losses would allow a use of nuclear for motive use.

    Don

  7. libraryjim says:

    I’m still waiting for the Jetson’s style air car that was promised to us 1/2 a century ago.