Diversity means complicated and simple sells, people don’t want to figure out what technology does what, they want to go somewhere plunk down their money and walk out without their new goods. I bet less then 10% of owners have read their car’s owners manual.
Don’t confuse mpg with efficiency, you can increase mpg by better aerodynamics or lighter weight or lower resistance tires, hybridization or any host of other ways, but that does not improve the chemical efficiency of the engine. You have to use a different technology or invest in R&D to get more chemical efficiency and that is not cheap and you probably can’t go beyond the theoretical limit which is well under 50% and may cost trillions of dollars to achieve.
Billions have been invested into gasoline over the decades ..
A fraction of that amount to electricity bye products ( motors + batteries ) ...
If batteries and electric motors had been as heavily developed as the gasoline motor , no telling where we might be right now ..
But alas they chose the devils brew ( oil )
Greenies make me puke. Oil isn’t going to be replaced in the next 100 years. Petroleum products are one of the mainstays of our civilization. War will continue and has been going on for thousands of years without oil. Lets all hold hands and sing Kumbaya and cry for all the dead amoebas that made the oil.
You are living in a dream world, far from reality and I know you will never see any reality other than your own.
I need to amend this. I was incorrect in saying this. The debate is heated and always will be. My "belief" is that anyone who thinks that fossil fuels is a renewable, or never ending source of energy is fooling themselves. Very soon, more and more people will see this, but I am not "greenie". I am a realist and reality tells me that every civilization so far has gone the way of the dodo, because even though we knew the end was going to come, if we didn't change it, but we stayed the way we were, because we did not want to give up what we had in order to change. It's human nature to not believe, if it threatens our own little world and that is what we, as humans, will continue to do. The next big "to end all" war will be about fossil fuels, but we don't have the last say any more, the earth does and we are much too late to awaking to that fact, nor are we willing to accept the future. It's just the way it is.
I do not believe that much in electric cars and wonder if the solution is some sort of alcohol based fuel.
Dimethyl ether, it is a diesel substitute, and can be made carbon neutra if produced via LFTR
I’m not sure either, all the ‘breakthroughs’ we hear about are forgotten a week later, so it remains to be seen what energy dense and cost effective fuel will come out and catch on as a fossil fuel replacement. I think all these points are important, if a new wonder fuel came out but no one likes it even for fictional reasons it will fail so all three pieces are necessary.
Batteries would be nice if they can reach 1/3 of gasoline’s density since they are already heavily used beyond electric cars, everything from remotes to cell phones to anything powered would be vastly improved.
In my personally opinion, there are people out there, that do not want to see the electric car succeed.
The first GM EV1 rolled out for lease in 1996 with a lead acid battery that had a range of 70 to 100 miles per charge.
In 1999 the GM EV1 used a Nimh battery pack and had a range of 100 to 140 miles per a charge.
That was 15 years ago, now tell me what improvements has been made in battery energy, then tell me where a big name car company has used the developments to succeed the 1999 EV1 or can get anywhere close to the miles per charge.
I smell a fish. 
.
When GM dropped the EV1 lease program, do you know who ended up buying the patents for Nimh’s battery’s?
Did you know that all the cars where crushed besides a few that where deactivated and given to universities and engineering schools and one to the Smithsonian Institution.
This is from Wiki
“Some of the deactivated EV1s given to universities and engineering schools were reactivated, and driven on public roads. The institutions came under fire from General Motors for violating the agreements of the donation, which indicated that the cars not be ”titled, licensed, nor driven on public highways” and could only be restored and showcased.”
.
GM got pissed because they where never suppose to have the car operational again.
In the advancements in the last 15 years, would you not think the big auto company’s could make a car that could get better than a 140 miles per a charge of 15 years ago. They can, they just don’t want to.
There is one company, with out the help of the big auto company’s that has achieved far greater than what GM did in 1999, Tesla Motors. Why is this private auto maker the leader? We all should know what’s really going on here.
If you get into reading up on what happened in California around the time the EV1 was released, all the big name auto makers where working on a electric car, with surprising results. GM just happened to be the first to release, But for some odd reason the mandates in California where lifted and every auto maker dropped the electric car like a rock, including the EV1. Auto makers claimed that there mandate was just unreachable by the time frame. So they dropped it, and so did the auto makers.
I always like to ask the stupid question “why”. :bigsmile:
A good documentary to watch about GM and the EV1 is “Who Killed the Electric Car”
I have seen the movie and have read extensively about this and i agree and disagree, the EVs were because of California’s mandates which were perhaps a bit too far ahead of their time, and i agree that automakers have a vested interest in the status quo and so do oil companies, but i don’t see it as a conspiracy, i see it as corporations resisting progress, creative destruction is usually fought by those who want to keep their golden goose. In addition a well known political party actively does whatever it can for their oil company friends, the US still subsidizes the most profitable companies on earth and this party has used their votes to keep those subsidies from being taken away (again public record). Horse drawn carriage companies tried to keep the car from succeeding, yet we have forgotten that.
If we want progress we have to allow progress to happen unhindered, and as controversial as it is, subsidies are needed to accelerate progress, oil was subsidized for many years to become successful, we have never asked them to repay that money, we just keep paying them more today.
Bort, I was trying not to lay the blame and leave out any names to avoid a political debate. You have definitely done your home work, as you know exactly what I was implying. 
.
We can put a man on the moon in 1969, but in 2014 we cant make a electric car to preform better than a electric car of 15 years ago, even with batteries that well exceed the performance of batteries of that era. Maybe we never really went to the moon. :bigsmile:
.
If California had really been interested (or not persuaded, hint, hint) why didn’t they revise the mandate to help the car makers to meet their mandate in some way. If they had worked with the car makers and there had been no outside influence, I’m pretty sure the electric car of today would be setting in a lot more driveway’s as we speak. They simply just dropped the mandate all together. You have to also remember that there is not anywhere near as much revenue generated from electricity as there is petro. Possible another very large organization that realized they had a lot to lose.
I don’t think the mandate was a good idea, i think more funding into research would have been better (and not to the established players, that has been tried and failed many times)
Patents are a mixed bag, on one hand they give ‘incentive’ on the other they lead to gouging and monopolies
The patent on large NiMH batteries has expired yet no one seems interested in bringing them out, perhaps everyone only believes in lithium technology and NiMH is considered a step back
How does the EV1 outperform a model S?
Oil “subsidies” are a liberal lie. Money isn’t paid out, the “subsidies” are in fact tax deductions oil companies are allowed to take for expenses incurred. In other words the government (which is a parasite and only has what it takes from the productive) is only letting these companies keep more of what they earn.
P.S. Even with “subsidies” ExxonMobil paid more in taxes in 2012 than any other company: $31 billion. Chevron was number 2 paying $20 billion.
So the vote to end these subsidies was defeated, is that a lie as well? Whether the money is a tax deduction or straight cash makes no difference, it amounts to billions of dollars being given to the worlds most profitable industry.
If i offered you a million dollars of Google stock would you tell me to keep the stock because its not straight cash?
The oil companies aren’t “given” anything. The government was GIVEN $31 billion by XOM and $20 billion by CVX. What part of that don’t you understand?
Your pointy headed “logic” assumes it’s the government’s money to begin with. It’s not.
I didn’t say they paid no taxes, i said they are given subsidies and the form of which is immaterial
Since neither of us can agree on this there is no point on rehashing it
If a crook robs you at gunpoint and says he’s only taking $40 instead of $50 is he “giving” you $10?
Yeah, no point in discussing because you have no clue.
Panasonic, I would invest in. Tesla? Not a chance in hell. I’m sick to death of companies that can’t keep their head above water without government subsidies.
Speaking of fuel-cells, a nice discovery has been made in nanocatalysts:
Chloe, how do you always find new things concerning battery / fuel cell research? Google news alerts?