One challenge anyone trying to create something new has is assessing its risks. I've heard it said (plausibly) by the electric car crowd, for example, that internal combustion engine vehicles would never be approved today. They're probably right. Imagine the warning:

Contains gasoline. May explode and burn you to death. Emits fumes that are poisonous. May poison the earth as well. Requires substance from far away places that are frequently politically unstable. Can be used to propel vehicle to speeds causing maiming or even death to vehicle occupants or bystanders. Requires extensive training to use. Must redo national road infrastructure, signage, and create a gasoline distribution network.

Wtf? Who would want one of those?

On the other hand, consider this warning:

Irritating to the skin and eyes on contact. Inhalation will cause irritation to the lungs and mucus membrane. Irritation to the eyes will cause watering and redness. Reddening, scaling, and itching are characteristics of skin inflammation. Follow safe industrial hygiene practices and always wear protective equipment when handling this compound.

This is, in fact, the MSDS warning for using sugar.

Good to know we're safe, though :)

Not sure if its high oil prices, consumer pressure, the collapse of the auto industry, or government subsidies, but green car news seems to be inundating me these days. Since I live, car-less, in Manhattan, my interest in these areas for the moment is rather more prurient than practical; however, a number of things caught my eye today.

First is this: a regular Ford Focus getting 62mpg! By "regular", I mean no hybrid technology, not even diesel, just a highly tuned gas engine. It seems there is hope in that old gasoline stuff yet….

Second thing: the green car of the year is the Audi A3 TDI: 40/52 mpg. Not bad and certainly Prius-competitive - and, again, relatively old style technology: a tuned small diesel.

These kinds of cars are great for today's consumer to get to lower consumption without low luxury/high prices (per my friend @dangreenberg's comments). My heart, however, wants to be free from dead dinosaurs and experience the quiet guiltless glide of electricity. Short of shelling out $100k+ for a Tesla, I think the upcoming BlueCar from Pininfarina is the way to go. It has that Euro-metro look, but with some funky features. I can readily imagine zipping around town (or, more likely, around Rhode Island where I spend as much of the summer as I can) in one of these. I think they're Europe only in the forecast 2011 release, but if my fortunes drift me to spending more time in Europe, I want one of these parked somewhere near by!

Of course, the great conundrum remains the sex appeal of the traditional engine. As a motorcyclist, I'm well aware of the role that plays in vehicle marketing strategies. Why else would the exist? When we see Arnie in the BlueCar instead of converting his Hummer to hydrogen, we'll know we're really on the road to change…

I've been thinking a lot about electric vehicles these days. While the Tesla is incredibly exciting, news like this really caught my eye: almost 200 mile range for vehicles in the price range of "normal" people.

While this is still not the vehicle for a road trip, that kind of range obviates the infrastructure problems of charging almost completely for normal use. I spoke with a bunch of Tesla drivers at an event here in New York City, for example, and with their 244 mile range, none of the owners thought that charging or infrastructure was an issue at all. Admittedly a $100K+ sports car is for most a second car with different usage patterns, but most of the owners drove their cars year round, to work, to their country houses, etc and didn't have an issue.

Imagine: driving around in 200 mile range electrics, and taking trips by train (plus rental electric on the other end?). Oh yeah - charging by wind/solar/etc.

Some days I think we'll actually get there.