The #1 Idea to Make Electric Cars Viable (My Opinion)

Well, someone needs to sort it - preferably before oil-based cars have nothing left to run on.

I think the sooner the oil runs out the better, There are so many ideas out there that if it became desperate then companies would pour money into it, but at the moment everyone thinks that it's all scare mongering and so just crawl along at snails pace whilst burying valuable resources in vast landfill sites instead of applying funds to research to convert these resources into fuel, I bet if it was a new weapon then the money would roll in by the barrow load.

Bazzer.

NB. HOB, I was prescribed suppositories & for all the good they did I might just as well shoved them up my arse.

I think they are concentrating on making the batteries charge faster...If you could charge your batteries in 5 min, it would actually be faster than changing the battery pack, and less labor intensive....I might also point out that by the time uniform battery packs and service stations equipped to change them out could be implemented, we'll all be using fuel cells...

http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/EPRI-to-demonstrate-Utility-Direct-Fast-Charger-technology-609802

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/06/52877

There are proposals and plans for this already in Europe and Israel.

More than only plans there are stations with quick changing batteries. System developed by Renault with an Israel company. It takes only a few minutes less than filling the tank full.

Correct.

The technology to make electric/fuel cell driven cars, (that people want), will come. Ultracapacitors will also play a role.

There are several big problems with the viability of your idea.

Before battery swapping stations come into existence, the cars, (with standardized batteries), will have to already have been purchased and in use. Nobody is going to buy the cars, without places to change out the batteries.

The only way this could possibly happen, is for another massive and disgusting, unholy alliance to be forged between big business and government, with the taxpayers footing the bill. The countries that have the idiots in power, (including the US), that think that money is endless and no cost is too high, to go "green"...........are BROKE.

I really think that the government plays a role in the research phase of new technology, as far as grants, etc. It's when something sounds good and they throw hundreds of millions of dollars at it, that burns me up.

Ultracaps are cool.

think propane tank for your grill. It really doesn't matter what the tank looks like, as long as it's full. All of these rants about station charging are exactly what the OP is suggesting replaceable packs will alleviate. Think 6 foot long 8" diameter battery tubes with end caps that open to slide in and out a foot long L-Ion or other unit. Long distance travel by swapping at a station. It's quick, and if you like, you can charge it at home, at night, from a cheaper grid, or off of your own solar hydro wind, etc.

GA.

You hit the problem on the head.

I see the same sort of problem every year when people go to change out their empty gas cylinders for full ones.

A possible alternative would be if a big company "owned" all the battery packs and you only bought a car with no battery (far cheaper car, would make it more attractive!) and rented the use of a battery. If it goes wrong, its changed out for a good one at the next station.....

The customer probably needs to pay a large deposit to stop him stealing the battery for gain abroad.

I am not trying to say that I have it all worked out, but that may be a better possible direction.

As replacement batteries often cost around 40% of the cost of the new car, I do not see electric cars as a cheaper alternative, as who would want a secondhand one needing possibly new batteries....this could happen as early as 3 to 4 years from new I read - appalling!!! A $30,000 car needs "refueling" after say 4 years at a cost of $15,000 including the work hours, what is that for a bargain....?

Why couldn't you re-charge or replace?

The idea has merit, and there are a plethora of other ideas that may be viable as well.

"Electric cars need... can pull up and the station will change its battery." Nope.

"All this 100 mile range and then a 12 hour charge is NOT going to be successful with the way we live our lives now." Yep.

The generation of, transfer of, storage of, transfer of, storage of... and final conversion of electrons as a vehicle energy source is a very low percentage deal. On-board generation is the solution:

Make something like this practical, and the world will beat a path to your door.

I'm going to try to contact MIT to see how they are doing on Ultracapacitors, which seems like a good path.

If they could develop a lightweight film or composite, it would really be good for my project, (see avatar).

Combined with solar cells, the ship could be charging while drifting or at anchor.

Yeah..........but...........but .........but, all we have to do is build more coal plants nuke plants windmills and solar panels, and the problem will be solved.

And power lines, and sub stations, and load ballancing systems, and, and, and, and, and.... None of that is cheap or easy to set up let alone ever talked about.

EXACTLY!

How many times have you seen four, five six.. (ten or more?) motorcycles, cars, pickups at a fuel dispensing station? I see it numerous times every day, all day long.

As I said, for the true success of electric vehicles, on-board generation of some type is the answer. This is probably a distant future event, but we will get there.

Hey, are you gonna be on TV? How did that work out?

"Hey, are you gonna be on TV? How did that work out?"

Never heard back. The thread and its OP apparently died an early death.

We just need to develop a synthetic dilithium crystal.

I agree with Doorman. On-board charging solves the problem. This is how most hybrid cars work today (Prius, Ford Fusion, Insight, Volt, etc.). That approach can work forever, and will get more "green" as new power sources make it to the commercial arena, e.g. fuel cells, LENR sources, etc. Such future power sources can continuously charge the batteries while the motors drive the wheels.

You are right for now, but as more infrastructure and advanced technology comes along, we can eliminate the engine cost and weight for many vehicles. Most people drive under 40 miles per day, round trip. They can charge at home. Most families have more than one vehicle. They can use a hybrid or other vehicle for longer trips. The Leaf is already a good option, but at a high price. The MIEV from Mitsubishi is a smaller, less expensive option.

So they have a fuel cell out back...I think a 1 mw would be enough, feeding a bank of ultracapacitors...

You're also discarding fuel cell development, which will be deployed in vehicles...and assuming everybody will need to rapid charge their batteries....and that everybody will have battery only electric...

And the fuel cell gets its power from what form of energy source that would not be more practical to be used directly in the vehicle itself??

Also how does a 1 MW fuel cell keep up with a 4 MW load?

I think we should develop micro reactors, we already have these mini reactors, 45 MWe with an additional 160MWt in heat, a smaller reactor of say 5 MWe, would be very small, and could be used to either feed electricity into the grid, recharge batteries, or produce hydrogen as demand increased...A combination sub-critical safe non-polluting power source would seem to fit the bill....Probably would only be about 20' high 6' wide, buried underground it would be largely undetectable....

If you come too close with this thing to me I sure will change my name to Nimby... (scary)

No reason to fear a sub-critical reactor...

"A subcritical reactor is a theoretical nuclear fission reactor that produces fission without achieving criticality. Instead of a sustaining chain reaction, a subcritical reactor uses additional neutrons from an outside source. The neutron source can be a nuclear fusion machine or a particle accelerator producing neutrons by spallation."

"A subcritical reactor can be used to destroy heavy isotopes contained in the used fuel from a conventional nuclear reactor, while at the same time producing electricity. The long-lived transuranic elementsin nuclear waste can in principle be fissioned, releasing energy in the process and leaving behind the fission products which are shorter-lived. This would shorten considerably the time for disposal ofradioactive waste. However, some isotopes have threshold fission cross sections and have a small effective fraction of delayed neutrons and therefore require a fast reactor for being fissioned, and for safety reasons preferably a subcritical reactor if they constitute a significant fraction of the fuel. The three most important long-term radioactive isotopes that could advantageously be handled that way areneptunium-237, americium-241 and americium-243. The nuclear weapon material plutonium-239 is also suitable although it can be expended in a cheaper way as MOX fuel or inside existing fast reactors.

Besides nuclear waste incineration, there's interest in this type reactor because they are seen as safer than normal fission reactors.[1] In most critical reactors, the nuclear chain reaction can potentially increase exponentially until the heat destroys the reactor, causing an expensive and potentially dangerous accident (see the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster * or chernobyl disaster as an example). With a subcritical reactor, the reaction will stop automatically unless continually fed neutrons from an outside source."

Or something like this. Cars could run on pressurized steam.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/mars-rover-curiosity-powered-by-nuclear-energy/10801

That is a good idea. A lot of pressurized steam gets created during rush hour.

So by "we already have", you mean there is a group of people who are trying to convince the NRC that they can design and build a reactor for sale to the public. The very best minds out here think this is not only politically, environmentally and economically unfeasible, most of us are sensing a scam. Why would you intimate that there is a chance in hell of one of these units being available within the next 20 years?

Good point, but I'll bet you that they can get millions government grants, loans, and funding for the unfeasibility study.

It would not surprise me to find a small reactor in a car in 50 years time....I can see people retaining the reactor for the next car when buying new.....

Modern nuclear subs are fueled once for 30 years running.....

Yes, and the Al Qaida version will have the relaxed EPA standards so it can double as a better dirty bomb.

As long as it isn't a Chrysler (they have the lowest customer satisfaction rating) they should be able to drive right up to their theater of operation.

You are applying today's problems to the future, which is EXACTLY why I selected 50 years......or perhaps you missed that detail....?

In 50 years time we may be on the same political side as Islammists are, or they on ours......who knows?

Well, looking back in time in 50 year increments there always seem to be some group that have been leveraging whatever technology they can to undermine others.

Extrapolating forward doesn't seem to change things much.

Try to be an Optimist, it is a far better than being a Pessimist....

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. Winston Churchill

It's a simple matter of economics...if you had any clue what you were talking about, you would know that.... Additionally, if you had any class you could state your opinion without attacking other posters...

you believe that a mini nuclear reactor is a matter of simple economics. Is that correct? And you stated that it is available, no? You have a clue?

It's no secret that nuclear is the lowest cost producer of energy, other than hydroelectric(maxed out) or geothermal(limited potential)...and yes the designs are available and small scale nuclear reactors have been used by the military for many years...I don't know, or care, who these "great minds" you're citing are, but I don't see any reference links to these opinions you so casually mention...It seems to me most of the critics are paid shills for the coal and railroad lobbies...

http://www.thestate.com/2012/03/03/2175521/deal-could-bring-srs-mini-reactors.html

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/radix-goes-small-on-nuclear-reactors/

http://www.radiationworks.com/nuclearships.htm

I don't know, or care, who these "great minds" you're citing are, but I don't see any reference links to these opinions you so casually mention

What are the chances that these "great minds" are politicians? I think politics is part (most) of what is holding back further utilization of nuclear. I don't care to predict what a politician is thinking---except about the next election!

Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting wabbits...LOL

You are forgetting about home charging at night. It is a boon for electric companies, and would energize the majority of users. These vehicles could also solve peak power problems. The vehicles and home systems could be designed to feed back power when needed by the grid.

I'm mildly surprised that nobody here has brought up what I think is the real flaw in this approach, battery fatigue. The depleted battery taken from a car will likely be replaced by a "full" battery that due to battery fatigue will have less total energy stored in it. There will also be the batteries swapped out that have a defective cell for any reason. Now an embedded tracking chip maybe made as part of the battery pack to indicate how the battery has been used by previous users.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think that this is a fatal flaw of this system. Maybe I should use the term drawback instead of flaw.

See betterplace.com This is a major company that has had quite a lot of success with the battery exchange concept.

I don't about success but certainly pushing it!

Your statement doesn't make sense.

appart from all the mentioned, I also think that the car designers will dislike the idea because having to change out a standard battery pack is likely to affect their freedom in designing the car shape.

and then just imagine the logistic cost of any change in battery generation! I just don't think anyone is willing to take that commercial risk.

Perhaps a rental scheme, with "intelligent batteries" where the batteries could be owned by a third party and the user is then charged for the amount of power consumed during the trip and the battery capacity during the trip. Older batteries would have a cheaper rate but would have less capacity (and would be thus technology independent). Prior to pulling up at the station one could select the capacity required via sms/internet. vehicles could have one two or three... batteries dependant on design and use/range of vehicle.

In-the-road pancake induction coils supplying power, some of which will be used to keep the battery charged up. The only "mag lev" would be the power pickup. When the utility is not available, the on board fuel cell will kick in. Since the United States will be unable to replace the interstate bridges as they fail, and with the failure of the fossil fuel petrochemical industry, the long distance travel will be replaced by roll-on roll-off trains which will probably be driven by gasified coal powered locomotives. The twentieth century model is unsustainable, and will be replaced by technology which makes the whole concept of cars, electric or otherwise, as quaint as a clipper ship is to us now. But it will happen much sooner than you expect.

I know what people will say but the most convenient way to run electric vehicles would be by induction charging,ie, cables buried in the road, on major roads or freeways it shouldn't be so expensive, a slotting saw the width of the cable a couple of inches down (50mm) then in filled with bitumen.In towns and city's where you have parking put induction pads where the car sits so it can charge up whilst left, all thats needed is to be no more than say 25-50 miles from a major road where the charge is taken from the road. Like I said people will say the cost will be too extreme but I recon that once set up a team could cut and lay 50-60 miles an 8 hour shift & working round the clock three times the amount, another offshoot of this could be an automatic guidance system so you just sit back and enjoy the trip.

Bazzer

I wonder if you brought an iron frying pan you could do a little induction cooking along the way?

With the constant road construction going on, at least in the US, this idea would not work for long. The amount of network switching stations, as such, that would be needed to make the system viable would drive the cost ever skyward. Local governments, mucnipalities, states and federal programs overlap all of the time and it seems live the roads are never done.

That is a good solution. You could even put them in pull off spots, next to major highways, and add them to rest spots. Many businesses will consider them to attract customers also. Some are already planning plug in and pavement park and charge spots.

It bothers me that part of the justification for electric cars is the reduction of pollution. However, you are just transferring the pollution to wherever the generating station is! Perhaps they can handle it better at a central place, but there will still be a considerable increase. Then we have to think of all the infrastructure that gets the electric power to us.

Wind and solar sound nice, but I doubt if there is enough available real estate to install sufficient capacity. Then there is NIMBY to think about!

If the weather is good, use cycle ,if your destination is <5km.

Otherwise and if destination regularly is <30km use electric vehicle and charge at home only.

If destination >30km regularly ,use gas/petrol/diesel car.

If destination is sometime >60km to say 500km/day hire a vehicle or keep a second car.

Technology is not mature enough to get fast charge in service stations.

Or wait for Compressed air car of Tata's this September. Fill cylinder with compressed air at service station.

Tata's compressed air car should make for an interesting experiment.

The linked article mentions that the storage pressure is thousands of PSI, not your regular compressed air setup $2 refill is bollocks. The primary energy needed tocompress the air would cost more than that.

http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/diesair/diesair.htm or google diesel-pneumatic locomotive.

Tata doesn't have it quite right. Too much energy is wasted cooling the compressor and warming the expander. The trick is to use a mixture of air and steam, as was done 80+ years ago. (see US Patent number 5,832,728)

The compressor, tank, expander ("steam engine") can be MORE efficient than an electric generator, battery, motor. It uses cheap ferrous metal or composite technology, not scarce and/or toxic materials which will only make cars more expensive if they are produced by the millions. Air tanks don't wear out, don't need to be recycled, can be "recharged"in minutes, not hours. (About 1905 air powered street cars, needing no overhead wires, were faster than electric cars, even counting the time to recharge at the car barn) Air and water, unlike electrons, are easily stored to make use of inconstant or off-peak energy sources. A wind turbine, for example, can compress air directly, for later use in powering the pollution-free school bus. 1000 liters of tankage can store about 30 kWhr. Nothing significant remains to be invented.

The problems are political. For example, NY State required a special license to drive a steam car, OSHA will go ape, and Homeland Security will arrest the driver for concealing a bomb.

What is feasible range that you would estimate?

What about scuba tanks, they have to be tested every few years and they do wear out, and it takes time to fill them, it has to be done slowly and the tank cooled as it is filled... and the tanks aren't cheap...What about high impact crash tests, for a tank to rupture would be like a bomb going off...Then you have the problem of extreme temperature differential and it's effect on cf vs psi...

"1000 liters of tankage can store about 30 kWhr"

Thats only about 40 HP hours. How far is that in stop and go traffic?

30 kWhr is comparable to what electric cars store in their batteries, and should be good for 60-90 miles. 1000 liters is comparable to the volume of the trunk of a sedan and could also be distributed under the floor, etc. A vehicle like a school bus could carry lots of tanks tucked in around the frame. Granted, the energy density is not a good as the best batteries, but it is good enough.

According to the US DoT most Americans drive over 30kM (18 miles) for work one way each day. That is one of the big conundrums with the whole commuting thing in America...it is very spread out when compared to every European and most other countries in the world.

That may be the average, but not the norm. I am no statistician, but you have to lop off those who drive very long distances from the equation. Most people can use an electric vehicle for their commute per a study by Nissan, re the Leaf. My gut tells me that is correct, but would welcome more statistics.

I only pulled the stats from the DoT page to match his groupings i.e., >30km. The full report is from the Omnibus Household Survey here: http://www.rita.dot.gov/.

We have talked about this here quite a bit, and I always try to point out that comparisons between the US and other "small" countries in the EU or Asia is not fair at all. It's like comparing the price of gas in England to the US...you simply cannot go that far in England and have gas prices comparable to the US national average where a good portion of our states have an average area greater than the whole country.

I'm following this monster thread, and you seem to be saying that "18 miles each way" or 36 miles roundtrip, plus 20 for the kids and lunch, is problematic. Every EV on the market will easily perform that distance. Even the pure EV's. What am I missing?

Many things:

1. Just because your average day may be 20 miles round trip, does not take into account all the extra driving you do. If you drive 20 miles a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, that is 5,000 miles per year. The US average is 12,000 miles a year. Ever take a trip anywhere or drive somewhere besides work?

2. The technology is too new and people are not willing to be first beta testers for a technology that is going to have all kinds of teething pains. People need something the feel is dependable and none has a warm fuzzy about untested technology and that is how EVs are perceived.

3. The cost is just too high. EVs are the playthings of the rich. Even with rebates you can buy a brand new Kia and save $20,000 in cash. 20K buys a lot of gas, even at $5 per gallon. At 20 mpg that works out to 80,000 miles of driving!

EVs are not anything close to cost effective unless you ignore their high purchase price and high cost of battery replacement, then, yes, you see a savings per mile. However, only if you are willing to put up with the previous two points I made.

4. In order to own an EV you will still need a regular car to go on longer trips. People want one car that can do everything, not a special car for in town and another for long trips. That is not cost effective and just required more insurance, maintenance, and registration fees besides the cost of the second vehicle itself.

I'd list other reasons, but I can't see why those four are not show stoppers in themselves.

You are almost right, the average US driver travels 13,476 miles a year which makes a daily average of just under 37 miles total per day. Wait a minute that's almost half of Nissan Leaf's estimated range of 73 miles, that can't be right. I'll look back at the age group with the maximum average annual miles, males 35-54 of 18,858 miles. 18,858/365.24 puts a daily average of 51.6 average daily miles. That's still below the Leaf's range, that can't be right. Ok, most of those miles must be from work which is only 50 weeks long and five days a week. 18,858/(50*5) is 75.4 miles a work day. That's better.

The Leaf is not designed to work for the average middle aged male driver that only drives their car to work. So until somebody can design an electric vehicle that can serve this demographic group, no electric vehicles should be allowed on our roadways. People are just to stupid to be able to plan and predict their real driving habits. We cannot allow people to ever run out of energy on our roadways.

We (my lady and I) each drive about the national yearly average of miles (12K - 15K miles/year) and just driving to each of our parents would require 2 to 3 recharges of the Leaf just for one round trip. I know many families that do that type of travel routinely as well. Got kids?

While the average daily mileage may be grounded in reality, the idea that no one drives outside of the limits of the Leaf is not.

Both of us live and work much closer than 37 miles round trip. Most people do.

Regardless, Leaf, Volt, or insert your favorite EV here, simply does not command a market interest nor a significance in the total market of vehicles sold. They are simply curiosities and/or fashion statements purchased by the well heeled. Someday that may change, but there is a long road to go before that happens.

Adding my Joe McCarthy like comments to your statements does make for some absurd comedy.

You're correct though that the Leaf and MIEV are not right for every person and driving scenario. No vehicle perfectly fits everyones needs all the time. Get over it.

You're correct that this new technology is really only for the financially well off and the extreme enthusiast. This is true with most new technology. Get over it.

You're correct that this new technology has yet to prove itself to the general public. Thats why its called new technology, you Luddite.

Historically, it takes twenty years for new technology to catch on. It will take time to see whether pure electric catches on. My preference is natural gas as a foil for oil. It could be filled up at home also. There are many small producers, so possibly John Doe could get a break from the gasoline monopolies. Hybrids could run on either fuel, and be switchable. I would like to see some vehicles designed for CNG tanks. For now they should be switchable to gasoline, if needed. All the technology and equipment is readily available.

All of the above. Soon truck stops will have CNG, eventually home chargers wouldn't be needed unless the price was a lot better. Have you seen the new ads for bifuel gasoline/CNG pickup trucks. GM and Chrysler will be selling both. China now says they have twice as much natural gas potential as we do. The snowball is starting to move. Cummins and Peterbilt 20 liter engines come out next year for 18 wheelers etc. Chesapeake and other natural gas companies are supporting new CNG stations also. Present vehicles can be converted for about $4,000 if you get a good deal.

1. Most people who make side trips do it on the way to or from work, especially with exorbitant gasoline prices. On there days off they combine trips. Often times they are home in between extra trips, if any. These cars are not for everyone, they would work out great for many though. There is no upper limit on what gasoline might cost in the future. An electric car gives a better guarantee of fuel cost.

2. Electric cars are for early adopters and greenies. Also for people who don't have to make long trips or have more than one car.

3.The average new vehicle costs over $30,000. An MIEV by Mitsubishi costs about $30,000. The rebate is $7,500 off of that. Obama wants it to be $10,000. I am against any rebates.

4. No, not everyone needs a "regular" car to go on long trips. Most families have two or more vehicles! Also many people buy all kinds of far more expensive vehicles for no good reason whatsoever IMHO.

I will list more reasons, because you are so closed minded.

A. To save blood and treasure that we freely bleed and spend in the Middle East.

B. To lessen pollution.

C. To save money on gasoline, and create some competition in fuel choice.

D. To show some leadership in the right direction, for those who need it.

I could go on, but that shares my basic point of view.

No one buys an EV to save money. That is an absurd concept, so that leaves the greenies and fashion statement crowd.

Unfortunately, even with 25% to 33% rebates they still do not sell.

When these vehicles reach parity to what people are already buying then there will be a tipping point. I think that will take awhile because there simply is not enough interest in the market to drive an earnest development effort.

You are right, change is not the answer. The status quo is just fine.

Even in a coal burning electricity plant, versus the gasoline required in a gasoline ICE engine, the equivalent energy produces about 1/2 of the pollutants. (including CO2)

The existing infrastructure can handle the increased load, with intelligent load management and off peak delivery.

I am amazed at how little effort it takes to stick your head in the sand.

Does it bother you that you are endorsing the continuation of an assinine transportation and energy policy? Are you waiting for a solution to appear that rerquires no effort or expense?

Who exactly are you replyng to?

I think people here in general want a solution instead of conservatism just as ,much as you do. Nevertheless, as the saying goes "the road to hell is plastered with good intentions": blindly running with the first best thing that looks like a solution likely has a very nasty outcome.

A poorly thought out solution - especially one that requires massive investments - is if it fails extremely bad for the entire quest for a solution. Just look at the much discussed Solyndra debacle to see how much a massive invest into a poor solution has discredited solar energy on this forum and in general. A poorly thought out solution for electric vehicles would likely result in a much worse public upset because we are talking a couple of zeros more in investment! The setback could be so major that even a good solution doesn't have a chance anymore until much later.

I have generally come to the believe, that the best solutions mostly do not require massive and abrupt system changes. They are more likely the kind of things that can be started out on small scale and gradually penetrate the markets.

trouble is....he is right. We do have an assinine energy policy. And yes, many, if not most of us are sticking our heads in the sand every time we go to fill up. Filling up with gasoline at the pumps is simply not sustainable, and it is absurd to think it is. I can hear the frustration in his voice. It is in mine as well.

There is still lots and lots of coal. Coal used for transportation has a history, of course, and nobody really wants a return to the belching steam locomotives which inhabit western movies and live museums. The cost of cleaning up coal emissions can more easily be borne in huge stationary installations with stack scrubbers, though the coal burning technology is becoming mature enough that it can be used for locomotives. I leave it to the experts to decide whether it is more effective to have a stationary coal burning electrical plant supplying a network of induction cables across the nation, or to have coal-electric locomotives dragging trains of flat cars.

The method which would use the most energy, regardless of its source, is batteries. A battery is not a storage device for electricity...a battery is a chemical device which is optomized to provide electricity when its internal chemistry is allowed to oxidize. It takes a huge amount of energy to create the chemicals in the first place, and an even greater amount of energy to reverse their natural inclination to rust down to an entropic state. If the idea is to save energy, or save greenhouse gasses, then electric batteries are, like, the worst possible solution. They have the advantage of portability though. So we won't be able to get shut of them.AND you can use coal plants. They have an unparalleled environmental record! (sarcasm dripping off that statement, grin!)

The roadway system in the US and Canada is crumbling, so it will have to decide pretty darned soon whether we will decide to rebuild what was built back then or to go on to something different. Now is the time to think about what that "something different" could be. Because I can tell you that there is no single city in North America which is able to keep up with the crumbling infrastructure now, and few if any in the European Union which will be able to take on the massive road replacement programmes which are due now, let alone what will need to be done in the future.

These are not doom and gloom statements...these are opportunities for clever and forward looking engineers and industrialists to move towards the 22nd century with a clear vision. Perhaps we will have electric cars...but honestly guys....why have they not taken off before now? They are a lot cheaper to run! But there may be something better. (I can think of several. Can you? But, we are stuck with the automobile paradigm for now. After all, everything is somewhere else and you get there in a car.)

Me...I just want to see something other than the "automobile" model, electric or otherwise. When the neighbour's two year old made a bee line for highway six just north of Hamilton Ontario, and I had to tackle him before he became a speed bump, my epiphany occured. It wondered "why the hell do we need all those damned cars anyway?" Is the 200 thousand deaths in the last fifty years worth it (and thats just in Canada!) so that I can get to the corner store to pick up a pack of smokes? Would there be another way to get to work?

Now, with the existing infrastructure collapsing, and the oil running out, the car will go the way of the dodo, and yes, now we WILL have to figure out another way to get to work. Lets work on that instead of trying to get the "assinine automobile model" to actually work.

So what does this have to do with the suitability of swapping out batteries for electric cars? Ummmmm....yeah...I have drifted a little off tangent. But not off topic I think... Would swapping out batteries make electric cars more sustainable? More useful? Sure. Keep one at work and another at home, charging. Its what I do with my electric Makita work tools. If you can have a coffee truck swing by to sell sandwiches and coffee at the workplace, I can see the battery swapping truck drop by to lift out the old one and put in the new one. The expense for this service would not be that great...considering that you will be saving big bucks on operating costs already. A gentleman on CR4 (from the Czech republic....I'll let somebody else do that search) retrofitted his van with batteries and discovered that he saved big time. So sure. So long as the county can still afford to keep your road paved and your bridges safe...it will work. But can we not come up with something even better?

We are using 4,000 lb. vehicles to move 1.2 people around. So you have a valid point. If we could have 1,500 lb. vehicles moving up to 5 people around, it would help a lot. I am not talking traditional mass transportation obviously. Combine lightweight electric vehicles with charged, protected, and dedicated lanes that could also be used for mopeds, and bicycles etc. I disagree with the coal, though. We have natural gas, lets use that. Coal has a lot of toxic waste material as well as particulates to deal with. Natural gas is far cleaner.

Are you willing to be the test case driving in a 1,500 pound vehicle surrounded by 5,000 and 6,000 pound SUVs?

Yes, if it is properly designed, but I was talking about them being in a separate, protected, lane along with bicycles, mopeds, golf carts etc. Weight does not necessarily correlate directly with safety. If I had to buy a car right now, it would be a small all electric to add to my vehicles. CNG for a full size van. How many families have one vehicle?

You wrote, "Yes, if it is properly designed, but I was talking about them being in a separate, protected, lane along with bicycles, mopeds, golf carts etc."

Have you considered the cost of that? Prices, per mile for asphalt roads vary all over the map (depending on terrain and climate), but run between 3 to 25 million dollars. That's per mile! That doesn't even include bridges or underpasses.

Then, you have problems with land acquisition. Have you ever been up in the North East? They have houses that date back to the 1600s and when they built them they built them right up along the "roads", which are little more than paved Indian trails. I know, because I lived most of my life there. Building a road takes decades and even widening a road is impossible in many places.

Plus, where is the money supposed to come from? Obama's personal stash? Have you had a chance to look at the US financial state right now? Do you feel that spending 100s of billions of dollars is wise, just for a few golf carts?

You wrote, "Weight does not necessarily correlate directly with safety."

Almost certainly it does! Ke = m * V^2 If you think you can build a shell that will survive a 4,000 pound light SUV traveling at 45 mph you have another thing coming.

I have seen what happens when these SUVs hit normal cars and it is not pretty, let alone getting hit by a commercial truck.

Even using exotic technologies from F1 carbon fiber mono-coups is not going to win the day against a Ford F150, particularly in a side impact. Incidentally, pickup trucks are real killers because they do not have a unibody construction, but are built on steel H frames that act as battering rams when impacting other vehicles. Due to the nature of a truck these frames are much higher off the ground than a normal car and just happen to nicely line up with the torso of the average car. They are particularly dead when impacting another vehicle from the side.

Don't get me wrong. I also drive a compact car (not for economy) and I hate SUVs and trucks. They are big, slow, and block your view, but 50% of today's 254 million registered vehicles are SUVs and trucks! Love 'em or hate 'em we still have to live with them.

Oh, you won't be going out much in a 1,500 pound car in windy weather, either.

You wrote, "If I had to buy a car right now, it would be a small all electric to add to my vehicles. CNG for a full size van. How many families have one vehicle?"

Hey, more power to you. Most families can't afford the cost of an electric vehicle and since they have very limited range and usefulness compared to standard vehicles, they sell like radioactive turds. They are the toys of the rich.

If economy is your goal you can buy a fleet of brand new Kias for the cost of one EV or one Kia and still have $20,000 for gas! That's almost 7 years of gas at 20 mpg at $5 per gallon and 12,000 miles a year. Your EV battery will be dead twice over in that time.

One Kia will go four to 10 times further on one tank of gas, goes in all weather, too.

But, hey, I applaud you for being a pioneer. I briefly considered the same as a toy to experiment with, but have just lost interest.

Now, the CNG vehicle has some merit. Unfortunately, we do not have gas anywhere near our neighborhood. Wish we did. Great for cooking.

I agree with about everything you say. We have a Hyundai Elantra and a Chevy Aveo. I paid less than $12,000 for the Elantra new. Two years ago I bought the Aveo with automatic and air for $10,000. I am all about overall value and utility. I would be a taking a gamble with a $22,000 (after rebate) electric car. However most people pay more than that for their ICE vehicle. My favorite car is my Grand Caravan, but am hoping they come out with a CNG or hybrid minivan. I have the luxury of waiting about six years for advances. My wife will be retired then, and we will spend all winter snowbirding from South Carolina to Southern California.

So you propose extra lanes for light vehicles. That would mean even more land be covered by paved roads. Intriquing idea. How would you pay for it? Remember, the problem is not just lack of oil, but the cost of replacing the thousands of bridges and miles of potholed roadway which are contributing to the bankrupcy of western civilization. Build wider roads and wider bridges? Well, its an idea, and not a bad one. Much of the roads now are built with taxes from fuel. With the collapse of gas guzzling motor cars, there will be a collapse of the tax base from fuel surcharges. And no money to build new infrastructure. I am sure our political masters will come up with creative ways to tax the bicycles though!

Me, I like the idea of moving slide walks in the cities. Though I am rather intriqued by driverless electric cars which come when you call one...sort of a horizontal elevator. Maybe elevated so that there would be no problems with snow, weather, or g-20 protesters. The idea of a neighbourhood with grass instead of roads for kids to play on is also rather attractive....though just replacing concrete and asphault with turf blocks is not what quite good enough...it would include restricted traffic hours and possibly remote parking areas. I was involved briefly with a think tank which considered the creation of just such a neighbourhood... The banks decided that every house had to have a driveway, so it went nowhere. I think I was ahead of my time. But, I digress....

Perhaps the solution is right in front of us...the taxi cab. Can move hundred of people per day (instead of 1.2 people) with no parking problems.

I'm okay with your rejection of coal. It is getting cleaner though. I think natural gas is okay. And it can be made from coal, charcoal, old lumber, even corn stalks and garbage. Anything with carbon in it.

I wonder how much it would cost to build and maintain such a lane, compared to one that handles everything up to 18 wheelers and cement trucks. The biggest problem would be keeping drunks etc. in their own lanes. We have a bike and hike path that goes across town but my main routes would be suicidal. You are right about the cost. We need to be on a major governmental austerity plan, while rebuilding our infrastructure. Many cities have very wide streets and they would be the best prospects.

"We are using 4,000 lb. vehicles to move 1.2 people around."

NOT ME! The lightest vehicle I presently own and have licensed for the road tips the scales at around 7000# and has proved that it can take down a full grown deer at 65 MPH with minimal damage! Thats the safety standard I expect of all vehicles and nothing less.

As far as vehicle size goes many of us have large vehicles because our life styles and work dictate that we drive them. I live out in the country and have to deal with rough roads and bad weather that makes all small cars unviable to own and operate for far too much of the year.

I cant pull a 12,000# trailer at interstate speeds in a heavy wind with a 1500# vehicle either. Where I live people who live and work like me are the majority here and we drive what fits best into our life styles.

Also if you want to argue efficiency of a vehicle by size why do 2000# 80 HP econo cars get 40 - 50 MPG while most 80,000# 475 Hp semi trucks like the one I drive at work gets 5 - 7 MPG in the same driving conditions?

Shouldn't the truck that is 40 times heavier and multiple times over less aerodynamic be getting 1 - 1.2 MPG or should the car that 40 times lighter and multiple time more aerodynamic be getting 1600 - 2000 MPG?

Just some points to ponder if you will.