The Carpocalypse

[zeppelin]

*I'll preface this by saying that I stole the clever title from another forum's discussion topic.

However, as a car fan (who's become a car-less, "sustainable future" transit-goer), I'm really interested in some serious debate and discussion about the future of the automotive industry. I'm sure it's been done before, however now it has really dawned on me; the potential and likely bankruptcy of Chrysler, GM axing Pontiac (after 75+ years) and selling many of the frivolous brands, major government bailouts, and a general shift in automotive attitudes have all of a sudden sunk in.

Some reading:

• TheStar.com | Business | GM gets more aid, clock ticks on Chrysler (Chrysler bankruptcy)
• TheStar.com | Business | A casualty of creative destruction: Goodbye, Pontiac (Pontiac gone)
• reportonbusiness.com: AUTO MAKING: AN INDUSTRY IN CRISIS (Some interesting stats)
• reportonbusiness.com: The U.S. days as Automobile Nation are done (Shift in "Automobile Nation")

Every day brings new news about the future (or lack thereof) regarding the auto industry as it is. As car enthusiasts, I think this may be one of the most broadly reaching and important issues that will affect us. What do you think of the (seemingly sudden) crash of the automotive industry, or do you think there will be a savior to be seen in new car markets and more sustainable personal travel options. Many ideas have been entertained before, however I think a time of impending change is upon us and it's time to really think about it. I guess this thread is sort of an Automotive Future Megathread, and I think it'd be really interesting to talk about this and more with like-minded car enthusiasts... or perhaps soon-to-be public transit enthusiasts if the industry crashes even harder than anticipated.

[zeppelin]

I guess I should get the ball rolling too, so here's what I think: Intensified urban areas, curbed sprawl, transit-centric transportation corridors (which means streets with right-of-ways and increased priority for rail/bus/subway transit), high speed rail links between cities (especially in countries with large land areas (cough US/Canada)), and less oil-dependent automotive technologies. Burning fossil fuels is so 20th century. It's all a little pie-in-the-sky right now, but I envision a future with my above points, as well as alternatively powered vehicles in everyone's driveways. Wind farms, solar fields, more nuclear power (which can turn into another debate, however I am complete for it).

Anyway, as far as cars themselves are concerned, North America, along with the rest of the world, really needs to see a more European model adapted. Hell, even Europe can adapt an intensified European model too. Either way, I think we're at the tipping point between the past, and an entirely different future.

[cargirl1990]

makes u think that these domestics can't play with the big boys.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

It's a symptom of the major shift away from Specifically the US but most western countries for their manufacturing base - Look at most other major industry and they've shifted the manufacturing offshore. Essentially the systems become too top heavy.

I don't know why people think Cars are any different to any other piece of consumer tat but for the most part people don't really care where they get theirs from. (cue arguments about buying local...)

I think it has VERY little do with oil because people are still buying and using vehicles, they just aren't buying these particular ones. Sure a downturn in the economy and a rise in Oil costs accelerates the process, but in the end, we're still driving, aren't we?

The automotive industry will shift towards where the product is actually being bought and made - Eastern Europe and Asia.

[Ferrer]

The car isn't dying at all. It's merely changing and adapting to the new situation. We've come to a point where we can't really give up on the indepence a car gives us, especially to travel outside the cities. Inside cities the story is probably different, and here the difference between US and Europe (and probably other areas, but I haven't the exprience) really shows. Here in Europe we use public transport a lot, whereas I don't think this is the case in the US.

Also I don't think there's such a global "carpocalypse", but just that a pair of badly managed north american companies seem to be about to disappear or be absorbed by competitiors. That's not the end of the world as we know it, it's just how bussiness works in capitalism. Other healthier car manufacturers may be losing a bit of money now, but will survive just fine.

[Rockefella]

Here in Europe we use public transport a lot, whereas I don't think this is the case in the US.

It depends on the region. My local metropolis is NYC and I remember hearing or reading that more than half of the city population takes mass transit to work. Not sure how it compares to European cities but this is the highest figure in America. As Zeppelin pointed out, IIRC, I envision high-speed rail and vast public transport solutions in the developed countries. Hybrids will bridge the gap until we can feasibly support full-electric fleets of automobiles. A 'smart' revolution will culminate over the next few decades, ranging from things like solar powered buildings/homes to a revolution in efficient living -- the likes of expansive recycling and low energy/low pollution activity.

Basically we'll be hippies from the future, in a nutshell.

[Dino Scuderia]

There isn't a 'carpocalypse' as Ferrer said....there has been a 'econpocalypse' which has sped up an overdue downsizing of a couple of companies too large for their respective market share.

If the financial crash hadn't happened those companies could have slugged on for who knows how long and slowly shrunk in size albeit too slow.

I don't see much changing for the next 10-20 years except for a major focus on marketing cars in China which as we all know has already begun.

Eventually there will have to be more consolidation in the industry IMO.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I think it's just the natural shift of economic power from the US to the east. It's been slowly creeping for nearly 30 years now. it's just another facet of the process.

That and you cannot run such failing business models as GM, Chrysler & Ford have been doing for so long.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I think the car is bound to die sooner or later, and this are a sort of symptom.

We asked for individual commuting, and we ended up colonizing our own cities. Streets used to be a place to meet people, walk, they were full of life. Now you wonder how curved is the road when you have to opportunity to cross it at late night, when no one is there ready to smash you.

Burning oil fossils could sounds as obsolete, but it's an easy and fast way to produce energy and transport it (with the fuel, of course). Still nuclear power is much more efficient and less polluting (YES, I said less polluting):
nuclear waste could even be the worst waste you ca think of at first, but unlike CO2, NOx, HC it's manageable. From a strictly industrial engineering point of view, this make it a better waste than air pollution, which once it's produced, it can never being recovered. And, producing air pollution with internal combustion engine, coke energy plants and similars, it can't be avoided, it's a part of the deal.

Solar energy, wind energy, water/sea/rivers energy are even better, but even more expensive than nuclear power, especially considering they are going to deliver less energy per dollar spent.

After this prelude, I think car will and probably should, despite being an enthusiast, become like horses: once they were used for work and commuting, now they are a passion.

Cars are inefficient and pollutant, noisy, dangerous (how many death per year?) and expensive. They may be the individual commuting system, but since we are all usually, from a general point of view, going to the same places, it isn't a big deal. Public transportation, mainly subways, could do the job even connecting cities.
Generation the electrical power only in larger plants would increase the efficiency of the process rather than creating it on broad of whatever vehicle or using a chemical/thermal transformation.
Even using cars connected to a general network that provides the energy would be quite efficient, but it would also kill the point of having a single car and not a subway or other larger vehicles.
For the real individual mobility, electric cars would do the job.

Everything else sounds like a passion, a dream we would like to live forever, but it isn't the best solution.

If moving to a more efficient way of commuting, even using almost only public vehicles, could bring us some really enthusiast car, even if just to be used on a track or on the road in a limited way, I would be happy.
See it this way: when horses were cars of today, everyone had a horse, and the horse wasn't a purebred, it was fair enough. Now, a few people have a horse, but the 90% of them it's a purebred.
Now think what even a Fiat Punto could be if the necessities of the ordinary guy and average mum could be ignored since they wouldn't bother about a car anymore with a better way of commuting?

perhaps this is a (complicated) dream as much as cars living forever.

[nota]

Still nuclear power is much more efficient and less polluting (YES, I said less polluting):

Solar energy, wind energy, water/sea/rivers energy are even better, but even more expensive than nuclear power, especially considering they are going to deliver less energy per dollar spent.

More expensive overall? The cost imposition for proportedly 'cleaning up' (aka decommissioning) old nuclear plants is ever rising:

73bn nuclear decommissioning costs 'may rise'

12 July 2008
Decommissioning the UK's first-generation civil nuclear sites and running the remaining operating sites will cost at least £73 billion over the coming decades, MPs have claimed.

The figure is an increase of 30 per cent since 2003 and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) claims there is no guarantee that this figure will not be "significantly upped".

The committee found that while the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has established decommissioning plans for clearing individual sites, there is considerable uncertainty over the costs of decommissioning.

Cost of decommissioning

In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost 480 millions euros (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years. Despite the huge investments in securing the dismantlement, radioactive elements such as Plutonium, Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60 leaked out into the surrounding lake.

In the UK, decommissioning of Windscale Advanced Cooled Reactor (WAGR), a 32 MW power plant, cost 117 millions euros.
In Germany, decommissioning of Niederaichbach nuclear power plant, a 100MW power plant, ammounted to more than 90 millions euros.

(Lack of) Decommissioning Funds
In Europe there is considerable concern on the funds necessary to finance final decommissioning. In many countries either the funds do not appear sufficient to pay the financial decommissioning, and in other countries the (substantial) funds are being used (too) freely for activities other than decommissioning, putting the funds at risk, and distorting competition with parties who do not have nuclear decommissioning funds available.

[LeonOfTheDead]

More expensive overall? The cost imposition for proportedly 'cleaning up' (aka decommissioning) old nuclear plants is ever rising:

thanks for the articles.
I still think (afaik) that green plants are more expensive to establish.
even saying solar, wind and the others plants are cheaper to build or run, can they match, atm, the energy produced by nuclear plants?
If so, I'm the first saying "go for them".

[IBrake4Rainbows]

In places like Australia and America, where cities are quite spread out and the road network is at least tolerable, the ability to travel within a city and great distances on your own terms is essentially a freedom that no person will be willing to give up.

Alternative forms of energy? sure. but the idea of personal transportation - in whatever form it comes in - won't disappear again. We're all far too bourgeois for that.

[Ferrer]

In places like Australia and America, where cities are quite spread out and the road network is at least tolerable, the ability to travel within a city and great distances on your own terms is essentially a freedom that no person will be willing to give up.

Alternative forms of energy? sure. but the idea of personal transportation - in whatever form it comes in - won't disappear again. We're all far too bourgeois for that.

I'd say that even in Europe with shorter distances and public transport systems this is the case too.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I guess my point is that it's not necessarily the car that will enable users this personal mobility, but certainly, the ability to not have to rely on public or mass transit systems to go about your daily business, and to have a vehicle that can be both driven in a city and great distances, is not something we currently have a viable alternative for, nor will we stand a pale comparison.

[Ferrer]

I guess my point is that it's not necessarily the car that will enable users this personal mobility, but certainly, the ability to not have to rely on public or mass transit systems to go about your daily business, and to have a vehicle that can be both driven in a city and great distances, is not something we currently have a viable alternative for, nor will we stand a pale comparison.

I think it will still be a car. Maybe not the one we know and use today, but something similar.

If we except the fact that it's currently burning a fuel that one day will end, the car as we know it today does pretty good job, as far as as personal mobility is concerned.

And as you say we're not going to do without that freedom.