The big difference from other “hybrid” cars such as the “Prius”, is that propulsion is expected to be from the battery the majority of the time.  The battery can sustain travel for up to 40 miles, more than enough for most drivers daily needs (80% of Americans drive less than 40 miles in a day).  If needed, a gas engine is on-board as well, and by functioning as as a generator (a “GenSet”), it can increase the range for up to another 200 miles.    For the majority of Americans, that would mean eliminating gasoline for ever! 

Bob Lutz, GM’s 76-year-old vice chairman for global product development, and the force behind the project, say’s he’s shooting for a sales price of “$40,000 or less”.

Oh well, you can always wait for the end-of-year sale.

Agassi reimagined the entire automotive ecosystem by proposing a new concept he called the Electric Recharge Grid Operator. It was an unorthodox mashup of the automotive and mobile phone industries. Instead of gas stations on every corner, the ERGO would blanket a country with a network of “smart” charge spots. Drivers could plug in anywhere, anytime, and would subscribe to a specific plan - unlimited miles, a maximum number of miles each month, or pay as you go - all for less than the equivalent cost for gas. They’d buy their car from the operator, who would offer steep discounts, perhaps even give the cars away. The profit would come from selling electricity - the minutes. 

There would be plugs in homes, offices, shopping malls. And when customers couldn’t wait to “fill up,” they’d go to battery exchange stations where they would pull into car-wash-like sheds, and in a few minutes, a hydraulic lift would swap the depleted battery with a fresh one. Drivers wouldn’t pay a penny extra: The ERGO would own the battery.

In 2007, Agassi quit his job at SAP. Many of Agassi’s colleagues from SAP joined him. They realized that what Shai was building was still essentially a software company. He needed a network that allowed cars to tell the grid how much charge they were carrying and how much more they required. The system had to know where the car was so it could tell the driver where to go to “fill up.” And it had to electronically negotiate with the local energy utility over when it could and couldn’t take power and how much to pay.

“For the car companies, we made it simple,” he says. “We separated the ownership of the car and the ownership of the battery. See, car companies don’t know how to assess the life of the battery. So they go through these complicated programs of testing them for a long period of time. And we told the car company, you know what? Just like you don’t sell a car with a card that says ‘Here is oil for the life of the car,’ you don’t sell cars with the batteries for the life of the car, because the battery is crude oil.”

Right now Agassi has a lot of venture capital, a company called “Better Place”, and an interest from the leaders of countries all over the world (not the U.S., of course).  It’s a novel and interesting idea.  Let’s keep our fingers crossed that this one might be the one to make it through the gauntlet.

Kennington said he’s waiting for better battery technologies, like nickel-metal-hydride and lithium-ion, to become more affordable. Those batteries can provide more power with less weight for increased range, but currently cost $10,000 to $20,000 per set, compared with about $2,000 for lead acid batteries, he said.

Anyone who has basic mechanical skills can build one of these,” Horsley said. “But it takes time,” he said, about three months. Most of that period was spent waiting for the parts to be shipped.

He’s got the motor of his maroon S-10 pickup set up to run on 20 six-volt batteries, the same kind used in golf carts. The motor connects to an existing manual transmission to propel the truck up to 60 mph.

Now, lets talk about “planned obsolecence“.  Hmmm.

The US consumes about 140 billion gallons of gasoline each year. A team of researchers led by John Heywood has completed a five-year assessment of what can be done to slash that and save fuel for the nation.

They looked at how gas and diesel engines, as well as hybrid electric cars and plug-in cars, are likely to evolve between now and 2035. They also assessed what can reasonably be expected from new fuels such as hydrogen and biofuels.

“Improvements” in cars in recent years have largely focused on increasing performance, driven by the demand for ever-larger and more powerful cars. As a result, no significant fuel consumption gains have been realised over the past 25 years, says the team.

They call for car manufacturers to focus efforts on improving fuel savings over performance.

Lighten the load

A seemingly simple way of reducing the amount of fuel used by cars without a big change in consumer preferences would be to produce lighter cars. Heywood’s team estimate that the average US car 25 years from now could feasibly weigh between 20% and 35% less without compromising on security and convenience. This alone would cut fuel consumption by between 12% and 20%.

I’m always amazed to see that one of the obstacles constantly cited by developers of smaller, alternative, and more fuel-efficient cars is that they “don’t pass safety tests”.  Um, how about we reevaluate the safety tests?  Right now it seems to be a demolition derby mentality out there; in other words, who can own and drive the car (read SUV) that can smash into you and sustain little damage.  A kind of “my car can smash up your car” way of thinking when we go out to buy something new. 

So, how about we change the rules.  If everyone were driving lighter cars with less “protection”, then a hit from another car would be relatively OK.  “Relative” is the key word here.  A large heavy car (again, read “SUV”), running into a small car, say a Prius, could be very damaging to the Prius and it’s owner.  However, if most people were driving light, and hence more fuel-efficient cars, then a Prius hitting say a Mini Cooper would be relatively (their’s that word again), OK and undamaging.  So, why don’t we redo the safety rules, giving light weight cars a whole catagory of their own.  This would greatly lessen the bureaucracy that the innovators in transportation have to wade through, thus leading to more fuel efficient cars SOONER.  Make sense?

True, for awhile, until all the SUV’s in the world are retired, it will be a little hairy out there.  But, hey, this state of affairs will be temporary, and the carnage can’t be any worse than Iraq, can it?  And the long range benefits to the death and destruction would be FAR more tangible!

Today at 5pm on the 101 southbound between Oxnard and Thousand Oaks was a nice looking Blue Cadillac El Dorado burning to the ground…

The sad part about it was there was no firetrucks in sight just a ABC eye witness news cameraman filming the carnage. If i was in my Jeep i would have been there next to ABC filming away…

some more photos: