Electric Cars Begging for Buyers

So, when will a Diesel-electric or diesel-hydraulic hybrid be out on the market ?

That kind of vehicle will be the best of both worlds if done well (like the prius). I would think a diesel hybrid could get close to 100mpg without too much problem, and it can always be run on bio-diesel...I can't think of a greener way to power a car with existing technologies.

Indeed if you want to spend the extra money diesel hybrid will be the best option. Especially if much of the driving is done in the city.

Hydrogen is still the best solution in the long run and the most logical one.

Along with Diesel and Bio fuel Hybrids as a transition to Hydrogen.

But the hydrogen fuel cell engine costs 10 times as much as a conventional engine. Worse yet, there's also the additional problem of building a national network of fuel stations where you can fill the tank with hydrogen. Hydrogen isn't found in nature in a usable form, and it's very expensive and energy consuming to produce. Nuclear power is needed for economical generation, however synthetic diesel fuel is than a much cheaper and also a clean solution. A national hydrogen roll-out could cost $100 billion. There's still hope that hydrogen will come through in the end, but the National Academy of Sciences believes the "hydrogen economy" is decades away.

What about Tesla cars? The Tesla car company needs a loan of $350m to build the factory they need - and you can charge those babies from home.

http://www.electrovaya.com/innovation/master/Default.aspx are manufacturing a very, very small lith-ion battery. What is stopping this innovation? Governments and big oil.

The problem with hydrogen is that it is too expensive for common use.

For transportation only high quantities of energy accumulated per unit will be economically and practically acceptable for use in vehicles.
As previously explained energy from electricity does not meet these conditions. Wind power, solar, hydrogen, etc. are not practical. Ethanol has lower energy content per unit and requires special more expensive adaption of engines. The only energy source that meets above criteria is the internal combustion diesel engine that gets about 30% more mileage out of liter than gasoline, and those savings are real in any kind of driving conditions, with refuel range of over 1’000KM or 600 miles. What's more, people who worry about global warming prefer diesel because it emits up to 20% less carbon dioxide (CO2).

The alternative of the old humble diesel engine is still the best solution for transport.

Nuclear energy is the very best option first to become independent of the Middle East fossil fuel. Secondly keeping more money in the country available for internal use, creating more jobs in the process. Coal all over the world in abundance available and in many countries easy to access can economically be processed into synthetic diesel with the help of nuclear energy.
Coal burning power plants emit CO2 and N2O gases what should be avoided.

The-Cynic thanks for yr comment, concerning Tesla and all other electric vehicles the most important issue remains the cost of the cars. Tesla Motors' roadster, which sells for more than $100,000, has been a technological success, but the company lost money on the early models. In a June conference call with the press, Chairman and CEO Elon Musk said the car will start to break even not counting overhead costs. But the technology, especially batteries, for all electric cars will keep them from penetrating the mainstream for many years to come. Thus it isn't big oil this time.

" 30% more mileage out of liter than gasoline"?  Are you saying that you can retrofit a diesel engine to run on gasoline?  I am confused.

Just read an interesting article about the history of the electric car, as well as a piece on whether electric cars can be affordable. Overall, I think it's still way too early in the game, even hard for the early adopters. Hopefully with some favorable legislation and once Detroit gets its act together we'll have something good out there!

Interesting story PIM! I'll put in my American two cents here and offer a different take (and perhaps a solution) on some of the energy problems outlined in your story. I'm now putting on my macro economist/big-picture thinking cap . . . here goes:  Suburban sprawl has not helped the environment, nor is it conducive to a sense of community, social cohesion, and shared values. Once upon a time in America, citizens lived within walking distance to their jobs and the  grocery stores were just down the block, the schools were just down the block, the churches were just down the block, the bars and restuarants were just down the block, and so on and so forth. I grew up in a  town like that and I've known many people in my home town  that, literally, didn't leave town other than for recreational purposes or to visit relatives or to spend a night out on the town in the big city . . . New York City in that case believe it or not.

Americans, nowadays, are commuting longer and longer distances to their jobs. The longer and longer commutes are no longer trends--they are a fact of American life and a given. It is not uncommon today for millions of Americans to drive in excess of fifty miles to their jobs. In other words, it is not uncommon for millions of Americans to drive over one hundred miles per day simply due to the distance between their homes and their jobs. Their commute times range anywhere from an hour to two hours depending upon  traffic conditions, time of day, and locality. For example, when I was living in New York City, it often took me two hours to drive from Wall Street to my home in Queens just ten miles away. In my opinion, this is sheer and utter insanity, let alone a complete and unnecessary waste of  time and energy.  

Obviously there's no quick-fix to America's energy and environmental problems. And I don't believe that dedicating scarce and valuable economic resources to  producing more fuel efficient vehicles, or coming up with more environmentally friendly fuels to power American vehicles, is necessarily the best initial approach to America's energy and environmental problems. I have nothing against those approaches, however I believe that the opportunity cost at this point, of those approaches is too great. 

If I were king for a day, my initial approach to conserving energy and the environment would be to entice Americans into working at jobs that are located much closer to their homes with the hope that many of them would choose to work  within their communities. Initially, tax incentives (if they provided an incentive that couldn't be refused) would spur  the "return to the community". If we do the math and calculate the energy savings and resultant environmental benefits of enticing millions of Americans to stop driving fifty miles back and forth to work, we're off to a good start. The next step is to encourage "community development" as opposed to allowing "developers",  "builders" and, in particular the real estate industry,  to get away with what they've been getting away with in terms of "building" and selling virtually anything  that they want to build and sell no matter where they want to build and sell it.

Rory an interesting opinion, indeed that would be the best solution for the environment. However motivating millions of diverse people to follow up on your suggesting is next to impossible. At the other hand your idea may have a chance due to the economic crisis. In times of distress people are more willing and driven to adapt to new measures. The global macro economy may just turn into a local micro economy and then the circumstances for yr idea are much more attractive and likely to be followed up.

Indeed 30% more mileage out of liter diesel fuel compared with a liter of gasoline. I'm not saying to retrofit a gasoline engine in a diesel engine although both are internal combustion engines. The difference between the two is the ignition of the fuel in the chamber. But standard diesel engines don't have to be retrofitted for any other type of diesel fuel, synthetic or biodiesel.

Indeed there are new and very innovative developments on batteries I've followed the development of the Chinese , the Indians and Canadians - Yaya battery. However this development is not yet materialized into a production concept, although still very promising. The 15 minutes charge time is for 80% 'fill-up' as I correctly recall. However the laws of thermodynamics say: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can simply change forms. The electricity used to power a car has to come from somewhere, at present still in the majority of cases from coal-fired power plants.

Every time energy changes its form as in the case of battery power -used to spin the wheels of a car- energy is lost, due to inefficiencies of the system by friction, heat loss, drag, etc.  Simply, all of the available energy stored in a battery does not get used for its intended purpose: some, if not a majority, is lost due to these inefficiencies.

Uwe I don't know which subject you have in mind about not being true. Probably the N2O gases? But leave those gases out of the equation and the situation still remains the same as stated. About the solar project initiated from Germany I may write an article about in the future. It is not as simple as is proposed. We still have the disadvantage, that local people will turn against the wealthy initiators read EU people to claim that the sun's energy is theirs. Like the terrorist in the middle-east do today with fossil fuel. The quantity of energy stored per unit in hydrogen is very much inferior to that of diesel. Consequently less attractive for transportation purposes.

Electric cars are the way of the future.

They can be powered by solar panels on your roof. No coal. Zero emissions. No greasy parts industry. No expensive garage repairs.

Hybrids, diesel, hydrogen... all excuses to keep us using up the last drop of oil.

Global Warming is caused by humans. Mainly the burning of fossil fuels. We have destroyed the Carbon Cycle (read up if you don't know about this).

This is fact. The only scientist that will deny it is funded by oil money.

The Oil industry knows the game is over.

You can try to pull the wool over our eyes. But articles like these are intended to misinform and divert our intention from the inevitable...

The electric car is our only hope to getting off oil. Embrace it as soon as you possibly can!