Cars, trucks, whatever. Same difference, eh?
Consider this: People have limited their usage of vehicles based upon the costs to operate them. Specifically: Fuel costs. When gas is cheap, people drive more. And they buy bigger. When fuel mileage becomes an important issue (e.g. sustained high fuel costs), people buy vehicles based upon the fuel economy. In order to get fuel economy, auto makers build small vehicles with as little weight as possible.
What do you supposed would happen if the fuel for the vehicle dropped to the equivalent of … say …. 50 cents per gallon?
Do you think people would be buying many small cars? Nope.
The last time gas dropped below $2 / gallon, people were buying pickup trucks left and right. Now? Not so much.
So when the fuel becomes cheap again (via Hydrogen / Electric), what kind of vehicle do you think people will buy? “Big ones” is the correct answer. Think Ford Excursion / Chevy Suburban big. Why would anyone compromise safety and functionality when the relative difference in operating cost differences are negligible? They won’t. Sub-compact? Gone. The smallest you’ll get are the Mazda Miata and Pontiac Solstace (two seater sports coupes). And those would be just for fun.
And here’s another “horrible” side effect: more drivers. Except in really dense areas (e.g. NYC), peeps aren’t going to use public transportation. Usage rates will be worse than they are now. Carpooling? You’ll never hear of it. Bunches and bunches of drivers all alone in their 2 ton behemoths clogging highways during rush hours with the AC at max and a lead foot. Because it won’t matter to their pocket book.
It is kind of ironic that a lot of environmentalists are lobbying for ways to reduce fuel consumption, yet the most likely solution will result in more consumption of fuel during usage, materials during construction, and land for more roads. I don’t think “ironic” is ironic enough of a term for the situation.
“Except in really dense areas (e.g. NYC), peeps aren’t going to use public transportation.”
The real problem is that once you get outside of the major downtown areas, the public transportation system goes to hell. It’s very difficult to use with any degree of ease. For that matter – local public transport is non-existent.
As an example – I used to have 3pm meetings in Chicago. I would have to leave my house at 11:30am – drive to the station – find a place to park (after driving around for about 20 minutes to find a free spot – because there was no local bus to the train station) – catch the 12:15 train, get to the city at 1:20 and then just hang out until the meeting time… all because the next train I could get wouldn’t get to town until 3:20. On the way home, I had to take care that the train I was catching actually stopped at my station.
Who has that kind of time to waste on a regular basis? BTW – the train system in Chicago, for all its inconvenience is very well used. The trains are often full up on the way out of town and they fill up on the way in. I’m not sure where they’d put more people.
All the greens I know rant about the big, bad oil companies and their obscene profits. Well, the oil companies make money based on gallons sold, like a few pennies per gallon. Petroleum product usage/consumption is at an all-time high, so of course the folks pulling it out of the ground (after large research, exploration, and infrastructure (pumps, rigs, pipeline, refineries) investment) are making record profits. However, out of that $3.00/gallon we pay at the pump, the oil companies might be making $0.05 per gallon, but the government is taking $1.53+ per gallon. Who is responsible for the high prices? And how much did government invest in infrastructure, etc. to justify that rate?