Spanners in the works?

Press, 15 July 1976, Page 19

Spanners in the works?

The role to be played by electric cars excited attention recently by the experiments of two lecturers at the University of Canterbury. JOHN ROBB, a transport historian, takes a quizzical look at future prospects for the electric car and suggests that some of the resistance it will have to be overcome may not be measured in ohms . . .

There has been much talk recently of electricpowered cars: indeed, for the las* 70 years or so electricity has been discussed and promoted as an attractive alternative fuel to petrol. Yet, in spite of seemingly overwhelming advantages, battery power has persistently remained a pipe dream. The explanation for this is probably that attention has been — as it is now — focused on the vehicle should be focused elsewhere. Transport history is strewn with the wrecks and hopes of technically brilliant systems which never got beyond the prototype or a very limited use stage. Their failures were caused by such diverse things as vested interests, bureaucratic ignorance and incompetence, fickle public opinion, and combinations of all of them. Only rarely did the ironmongery fail its performance objectives. Examples are legion: Brunei’s masterful broad gauge railway was ousted by political shortsightedness; the Tracked Hovercraft needed such immense curvature for its tracks that it could not reach city centres in spite of a capability of more than 300 kilometres an hour; containerisation has only realised part of its potent-al simply because workers and their unions were overlooked; London’s third airport at Foulness died when the economic gymnastics used to justify it we-e exposed as the irrelevant sham they were. Perhaps the promoters of these schemes were naive or simply over-en-thusiastic. Are the backers of he electric car similarly afflicted? Will their horse power falter in the home straight? The electric car seems ideal for the countless journeys in towns where high speed and long range are not necessary. Since most of mankind lives in towns and the vast majority o' all trips are into or from a town, a vehicle able to make those journeys cheaply and fumefree must be a Godsend. For longer journeys, and for heavy commercial vehicles, electric power may yet be some way off, but surely not too far. So, assuming the boffins

produce a compact, cheap, and light battery, and that electric cars become commonplace, what effects mignt follow? Experience indicates that they* will be felt least of all on the roads.

The car itself should cost less to produce than its petrol-driven cousin because it would not need all those reciprocating parts — clutch, gearbox, carburettor, or oddly enough, complex electrics. Th§ vast motor-spares industy would be the first golden goose to have its wings clipped. New motors could presumably be produced by existing electrical traction manufacturers, and a standard range of easily interchangeable units could serve most vehicles. A Japanese car which could accept a British-American or New Zealand-made motor is a distinct probability. Since electric motors last much longer than petrol engines, fewer of them would be required. Also, because of their interchangeability, a much smaller number of replacement engines and their mountains of spares would need to be imported. Longevity and simplicity would more than offset the costs of copper and other expensive resources which electric power units would involve. It all sounds ominous for the engine and transmission departments. The poor old car salesman would have his style cramped, too. He would be able to offer only different body styles; power ratings and fuel consumption figures would be measureable, not pre-qualified by “brake” or ’“rated” or “under authenticated conditions on last year's Tibetan rally.” Gone, too, would be all that flannel about twin Strombergs, overhead cams, and optional overdrive.

If your family grows, or you get a heavier caravan, you would nee* only to drive to the nearest traction motor depot to swap the car’s 25-kilowatt motor for a 50-kilowatt, ignoring all the pretty sales-yard flags on the way. Changing the motor might involve only a few bolts and wires, much as a generator does now. What about car maintenance and the motor

mechanics who do the work? Many mo tori s.’ last year discovered that their friendly corner garage was no longer allowed to tamper with the car’s electric innards: a specialist auto electrician- had to be consulted. Since many car failures are electrical, this regulatory change must have cost the local mechanic a fair bit of business. But that loss might be only a foretaste of the future. Firstly, electric motors need very little maintenance compared to an internal combustion engine, and what tnere is will be done by specialists. Secondly, these specialists may have nothing to do with the present “motor trade.” They can use production-line and unit-exchange techniques to fix up your car, just as they do now for the motor in your washing machine or driving the factory’s lathes.

The garage proprieters’ pumps and sump-oil dispensers would become redundant; their incomes in a small way might be offset by battery-bank charging and changing services. But what of their oil company backers? Those doyens of pub:— philanthrophy would not be too enthusiastic. They were, to be charitable, heavily implicated in the murder of the steam car. The electric version might be earmarked for elimination, too.

Even though the jobs of panel beaters would be safe (at least as long as vehicles have human drivers), the rest of the mighty motor trade and its oily colleagues would be in for severe shocks. The country, private, and commercial motorists should optimistically look forward to reaping the benefits. But would their pockets actually notice the difference? The resurrection of electric cars is due in part, to the environmental odium of petrol, but mainly because of the uncontrollable price of oil. NewZealanders might. ponder how many sheep are raised to pay for a barrel of oil, including the oil used to raise the sheep, transport them across the world, and bring oil back for the next mob. Whatever the answer, a saving

in oil imports must be worth while, even if the politicians lose a universal scapegoat.

To be able to plug in the car to a charging point at home and pay for journeys relatively painlessly on the power bill, are great conveniences. The domestic garage now must meet fire codes, and many road acc lents are greatly intensified because petrol is so inflammable. Electric vehicles would offer, therefore, considerable savings in building, insurance, and human costs. The payments for our trips would be made to public bodies as opposed to the present commercial agencies — yet another community benefit. Government and local councils would still be able to collect their levies, easily, but indirectly, through the power boards. A teparate tariff structure and special metering in the home would probably be required. “Trip taxing” during the petrol-oil interegnum might be tricky to administer, but it has been done before, in the 1950 s a Christchurch electric motor-cyclist was charged three pence a mile to offset the Road Boards loss of petrol levy. No doubt, the bureaucrats would rise to the new administrative and fiscal challenges. But would the water in our hydro lakes rise high enough to give us the power? The experience of. the last few winters makes one wonder whether the power authorities would be able to supply the electricity which they exhort us to install and consume, even at present-use rates. There is, after all, only so much rainfall, so many dam sites, and precious little money to utilise either. Oil and coal power stations are possible, even though one involves oil imports (albeit for more efficient use than in petrol engines), and the other does not do our air any good. Extra electricity demands also strengthen the arm of the nuclearpower station proponents, and we may yet see “half a million” apparent reasons against nuclear power.

So, although the vehicle itself is pollution free, its power source is anything but. Converting our cars might cost us many more drowned valleys and a few hundred more miles of transmission lines marching with unfeeling sensitivity across our priceless landscape and farmlands. The cost of an overcooked reactor might also add to the bill.

In town, things would be quieter than now: pedestrian safety would probably necessitate electric “cow bells” to herald the approach of otherwise silent vehicles. But the removal of fumes and oil company paraphernalia, along with engine noise, must improve life for most of us. Yet, we must not forget that special electric meters could easily be switched off by the power board during the cold spells we now experience and expect, each winter, and which are such a continuing surprise to officials.

There is much more to electric vehicles than meets the eye. They have a very long path ahead. Many hurdles to clear, and a few giant toes to tread on before they oust internal combustion engines from our urban streets. The gubbins under the bonnet is a very minor detail, indeed.