Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:09:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


The same for the car makers. Why do they persist in using
outdated polluting technology when proven alternatives are around.


Same point exactly. Electric cars. manufacturers like GM and Toyota
launched them in the U.S. and made them available on lease, then had
second thoughts and terminated the leases.


Its worse than that Andy.

The automotive industry has huge plant spread around many major
subcontractors dedicated to producing the bits and pieces that comprise
a car.

VIRTUALLY NONE OF THESE BITS with the exception of wheels, suspension
and brakes, have any applicability in an electric car.

No established manufacturer is going to spend billions on an electric
car when it means the complete death of the industry, its workers and
the investment in plant that they have made over the years.

Big businesses have their own inertia. In many cases its virtually
impossible for a company making e.g. CRT's to re-invest in producing
e.g. LCD screens or plasma screens.

At the very best, what we may see in car technology, is some
enterprising small manufacturer- brand new - making a halfway decent
model that achieves some market penetration, and then is bought up by
one of the giants.

There is zero chance that they themselves would be able to produce one.

As far as building go, things do move, but slowly. IMM is an idealistic
fantasist, but but by bit the market learns from elsewhere, and
gradually adapts to changing conditions. You cannot retrain an industry
of ill educated bodges to use different techniques overnight. But in due
course people with good ideas that save money and make better products
become examples to others, and progress happens.

You can't legislate FOR progress: At best you can legislate to remove
some of the obstacles. Progress comes from a very small group of
individuals with vision. Not from governments, and not from armchair
fantasists.