are electric cars as cost effective as gas cars?
603100
if you have solar panels on your home and charge your vehicle at home, it's a pretty great deal. My EV and solar panel installation cost less than the last gas car I bought five years ago. Yes, the batteries will eventually need to be replaced (they can be recycled), and that may cost me anywhere from $3000-$30,000 if I decide to do it, but most estimates indicate I should get at least 100,000 miles out of the batteries. For me, that's more than 10 years away, and battery technology will keep improving during that time. EVs take significantly less regular maintenance than gasoline cars, saving money there, too.
1107450
Hardly. Methane, ethanol (not yet for cars but already viable for power plants), vegetable oil etc.  If we really had to stop burning fossil fuel, the current service stations could distribute the new fuel.  One of the problems with bringing out alternate fuels is that in order to 'compete' with gasoline, it has to be reasonably available to people driving across the country.  Distribution is a tough issue for some of the products.
352778
It actually is. GM is spending millions on the Live Green Go Yellow campaign which features Flex Fuel GM vehicles that can take both E85 and regular gasoline. Although E85 is cheaper than regular gas, there are still supply shortages due to the fact that it has to be grown, processed, and transported from the Midwest\n\nAnd here is a news link from IBD
536515
If you're getting a cart for use at your country club, check with the rules.  Almost everyone at my club has an electric cart because they're all tree-huggers.  I (along with a few others) opted for a gas cart.  They're cheaper, have more HP but less torque, and won't leave you stranded.  It's easier to bring a gas can to a stranded cart rather than a generator.\n\n36V vs. 48V is like a V6 vs. a V8.  If you don't need the extra battery, don't get a 48V.  Usually the batteries in those are $300 each.\n\nIf you're using the cart to play around (not a round of golf) with, then get all the juice your budget allows.  The great thing about electric is the torque.  48V will pin you back in your seat.
82643
If things keep going as they are we wont be driving cars that run on gas. There are electric cars in development and other forms of fuel being developed.
85461
I think we will eventually.  For a few reasons:\n1) There finally seems to be enough momentum and interest on the part of consumers for vehicles that consume less gas.  Its no longer a "fringe thing" or a hobby or a "tree hugger" thing.  Every day people are fed up with high gas prices and our dependence on less friendly nations.  The more demand there is from consumers, the more incentive manufacturers will have to make such vehicles.\n2) Gas prices are not coming down significantly anytime soon.  There was a bit on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago where Texas Billionaire investor T. Boone Pickens was discussing investments he was making in Canadian Oil Sands.  He said "We'll never see $1.50 gas again."  I agree.  With the surging demand from countries that are just starting out in their economic growth cycles (India and China), the demand for all petroleum based products is only going to get worse.  This will further push up world oil prices and further infuriate already frustrated consumers of gas.\n3) On the innovation front, Venture Capital firms and others with money to invest are looking for the "next big thing".  The Internet was the fad of the 90's.  Now, looking for a new wave to catch, I'd say a significant amount of money is going into startups looking at ways to reduce our dependence on petroleum.  This could include investments in Fuel Cells, Hydrogen Technologies, Solar Technologies, BioDiesel, etc.  Innovations that come out of these investment efforts should, hopefully, yield some technologies that help the US (and world) consumers break their addiction to oil.
374376
To Prove to the Right People that My Compact, Safe, Low Pressure Unit can Turn Regular Pump Gasoline into Propane. I've already Accomplished it. The Problem is the Fact that all Vehicles from 1996 to the Present are Required by the Stringent EPA  OBD II Law to Run at 14.7 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel, or the vehicle will Fail Inspection . Even if Fuel Economy is Markedly Improved, and Emissions Lowered, the Vehicle will fail Inspection because by Law, there is a maximum, and a Minimum Limit. Deviate from Either Parameter and the Vehicle will Fail Inspection. This is Insane! I've been to the US Patent Office and Looked at the Patents for Other Similar Units that have been kept off the Market.The Pogue Carburetor, which is Patented, is Documented to Provide 100 + MPG with a Flat-Head Ford V-8 Engine, that's usually 15 MPG, or Less! We have got to Reduce Dependence on Petroleum Worldwide, Vehicle Emissions, and Global Warming. That's the Dream , and the "Why". So, How am I Doing? 14.7 to 1 is the Law. I've Managed to prove 100 to 1 is Possible, but it's a Losing Proposition at this Point. For even More,http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html Hybird Vehicles aren't the Answer.At Highway Speed, the Gas Engine takes Over, plus the Heavy Batteries have to be Hauled.Cheap, Safe Hydrogen is the Answer, but as long as there is a High level of Profit in Petroleum, nothing will Change, including the insane EPA OBD II Law.So, I'm not doing very well at this Point. Maybe with the Power of the Internet that will Change.
616877
All engines have a cost.  I suggest that the cost of this form of energy may be the slowing of the rotational period of the Earth.  What would we pay in time
1126712
Yes, we've known about electrolysis for a long time.  It's how submarines make breathable air while submerged -- they electrolyze seawater and just bubble the hydrogen overboard while releasing oxygen gas into the boat.  However, it takes a lot of energy to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen, which isn't a concern in a small space with a nuclear reactor to power everything, but it isn't a 100% efficient conversion of electrical energy into chemical potential energy.  There is a loss of energy due to heat, for instance (the electrodes heat up with current passing through them, and even the wiring that carries it there), and as with any energy system, you have to take entropy into account.  Depending on who you talk to, you can get anywhere from 50% up to 94% efficiency, but you'll always put more energy into it than you get out of burning the hydrogen later on down the line.  The reason we're still researching fuel cell and hydrogen cars comes from the mechanical efficiency of the different types of engines -- you currently still get more bang for your buck out of fuels than from an electric motor-driven car.  The energy is only reusable if burning the hydrogen generates the electricity to separate the water back into hydrogen again, in which case, you're talking about a perpetual motion system, and that's physically impossible.
1168671
Well, in some cases (like solar cells) the cost can be prohibitive. Retrofitting a house with enough solar energy to participate in a buy-back program can cost $35,000, which would mean (at the current pricing structure) a 20-year ROI. Most folks in the US move every 5-10 years, so you would never realize that "payoff".\nIn other cases, like biodiesel and ethanol, the distilling process can take almost as much energy to produce, overall, as it will harness. Sure, you get portability with the non-fossil liquid fuels, but the energy to make the stuff still has to come from somewhere else, and right now, that means coal, nuke, or oil power primarily (at least in the USA).\nOther disadvantages include unreliability, slow recharge times, limited range, and limited performance when compared to fossil fuels. Even wind power (which is fairly cost-effective) is not terribly reliable, depending on a variable power supply (wind). If generation points were distributed more broadly around the country, there might be more reliable average generation, but a still day still means "no power." \nThere is no doubt that "renewable sources" are a possibility, but the state of the art right now is about at the "finger painting" level.
416091
It will improve gas mileage but at what cost.  You might get two to three miles per gallon more.  But at 5 to 5 hundred dollars worth of stuff it isn't exactly cost efficient.  See my point.  Unless you are just looking for a little more power and a better sound.
501040
I SAW A SPECIAL (I THINK IT WAS ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL) AND THEY SAID WE WOULD IN LESS THAN 100 YEARS.\nI KINDA BELIEVE IT BECAUSE IT CAN NOT LAST FOREVER AND IN THIS TIME AND DAY YOU KNOW WE USE WAY TO MUCH! WE ARE A GREEDY PEOPLE AND SOON WE WILL RUN OUT. BUT IT WONT BE LONG UNTIL THEY ALLOW OTHER COMPANIES TO HAVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF GAS (LIKE GAS FROM CORN)!   ITS KINDA FUNNY HOW THEY HAVE HAD THAT IN THE WORKS ALONG TIME AGO BUT BECAUSE OF BIG OIL COMPANIES (WITH THEIR TIES WITH POLITICIANS...ESPECIALLY BUSH) THEY WONT ALLOW IT.HELL...THEY COULD HAVE MADE THE HYBRID ALONG TIME AGO OR JUST PLAIN ELECTRIC!   BUT THEN BIG BUSINESS WOULDNT BE ABLE TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO COLLEGE AND BUY THEIR MISTRESS'S NICE CARS AND FURS!\n\n\nBUT THE ANSWER IS YES...IN ABOUT 100 YEARS OR LESS!
300999
Infinite Energy would be Solar, Wind, and Geothermal. Nothing to Invent there, only the Marketing and and Distribution is the Problem. As Long as there is a Great Amount of Profit in Petroleum, nothing will Change Anytime Soon. As far as Global Warming goes, if Gasoline could be Utilized more Efficeintly, Engine Pollution would be Substantially Reduced. I've found a way to Convert Regular Pump Gasoline into Propane, with a very Compact, Safe Low Pressure Unit that Mixes Air with Gasoline to Produce a Thick, Rich Propane Mixture, much better than Regular Propane, Resulting in 100 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel. Here's the Problem, all Vehicles from 1996 to the Present are Required by Law to Run at 14.7 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel. That's the EPA-OBD II Law. Any Change Whatsoever, even if Vehicle Emissions are Lowered, and Fuel Economy is Increased will Result in a Failed Vehicle Inspection. With My Vapor Chamber, even the Largest SUV could get 50 + MPG, and Emit a Fraction of Emissions. But, Again, it's against the Law. If I'm Wrong, then how is it that Engines DO Run with Propane Cylinders? They're Expensive, Cumbersome, and a Real Hassle to Refill. So, it's not Worth It. Hybirds? Great, in Town, but at Highway Speed the Gasoline Engine has to Run, plus, the Heavy, Expensive Batteries have to be Hauled! As to Taking My Device to the US Patent Office, forget it! Every Time this has been done before, it's been Stopped Cold! 14.7 to 1. That's the Law. So, to Sum Up, the Problem is not One of Invention, or Creation. No, the Problem is Legislation. My Device would just about fit in a Shoebox, and can be Built and Installed for less than $1,OOO but it will never get on the Open Market. Inexpensive Hydrogen is the Answer, but as long as there is such a Tremendous Profit in Oil, Nothing will Change. Go to this Website, and You'll See what I mean http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html
162289
My dad in Australia has converted his car to run on Liquid Petroleum Gas. It has halved his costs every time he fills his tank. See the link below for more info.
568808
With the way gas prices are these days?\nDefinately a HONDA HYBRID!\nYou can't beat 51 miles per gallon!\nPLUS, Hondas have a very high safety rating\nThey hold their value very well\nAND they are very reliable\n\nDEFINATELY A HONDA!
405671
I assume you mean electrolysis?  I don't know the exact ratio of energy out to energy in, but I do know that it's not very efficient.  There will be a lot of lost energy.  What kind of H2 on demand system?  Are you trying to run an automobile?  If so, you'd need more than about 10 kilowatts of electricity.  Might as well just build an electric car if you have that much electricity to waste.
1019654
Because people don't want to walk or take a bike. Frankly I think we should invest more in hybrid cars and public transportation as it would at least help with the Gas "problem". \n\nBoycotting gas stations would probably not do anything except shut down the gas stations. Gas is used for other things like plastics, and paint, so the price of gas would still stay high.