Ban all ICEVs (with above 100 g/Km) from city centers...could be rather convincing?

And what if he's simply telling the truth, Anne?

Last Friday, Autoweek interviewed the CEO of Coda and his estimates were only 1 to 2 percent EV marketshare for the foreseeable future. Actually, that's what's he's hoping penetration will eventually be, as most industry forecasts are even lower.

The heads of most automakers -- the ones talking to their boards and making long term financial decisions -- have claimed similar numbers. And you don't change the direction of the auto industry over night. Have you really any idea of the scope of the supply chains involved in the auto industry? The time it takes to retool an assembly line, or to move a vehicle from concept to reality?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how simply denying every dissenter, especially ones from the auto industry, is very productive.

A lot of eggs are being put in the EV basket, and if they do fail to live up to the hype, we might, 10 years from now, ask why more wasn't done in the past.

I've been following this game for every 10 years now, and the pace of change has been frustratingly slow. Yet all the while, much more could have been done, if constant, reasonable steps had been taken.

Thus, perhaps instead of attacking the bulk of automotive CEOs that disagree with you, it would be more productive to engage them. Ultimately, governments don't build cars, at least not cost-effectively, businesses do. Governments can run studies, and estimate costs, but even expert contractors seldom nail real world costs. It almost always costs more, and doesn't the government have a poor record in such affairs?

Much more can be achieved today than is being achieved, but moving forward will take well coordinated interaction between government and business. Then there is the pitiful consumer whom refuses to take proactive responsibility for their impact upon the world.

This study do not take account of hydrogen fuelcell cars. As the hydrogen stations infrastructure start appearing we might see some hydrogen-gasoline hybrid appear or hydrogen-diesel hybrid appear. A big tractor-trailer truck powered by a hybrid hydrogen-diesel ice can be a big improvement in efficiency.

1% would be good. Not everyone should buy an electric car. It doesn't make economic sense for everyone. Getting the price down will make it possible for more people to get an advantage from buying an electric car. The way to get the price down is to get above a critical point in production that allows for economies of scale, including the cars, but also batteries and electric drive components. I think there are about 250M personal vehicles in the US, 1% of that is 2.5M. If we had 2.5 million EVs and PHEVs on the road, the price would drop from economies of scale. I am not even including other markets, this is just the US. So how do we do that? Probably subsidies and increased fuel economy standards. I'd like to force GM to produce 100K volts (since we the tax payer own a big part of them) and perhaps they could lower the price to $32,500, which is where the price really should be, but I guess no one wants to do that. I certainly know that GM doesn't really want that car to succeed. It's too bad we are depending on the right wingers favorite car company to change the world for the better. If we could only somehow attach the volts success to a war with great amounts of indiscriminate killing we might actually get the righties support on this.

The first bridge to BEVs is called HEVs and Toyota has built over 3M bridges so far and will build another 1+M this year and probably over 2+M/yr by 2015.

The second bridge to BEVs is called PHEVs. GM and a few others tried to jump the first bridge and go directly to PHEVs and BEVs but did not have as much success as Toyota had.

Successful vehicle electrification may very be a step by step evolution, from HEV to PHEV and finally to BEV.

Toyota has mastered the first step and will soon evolve to the second step, i.e. their 2013 PHEVs...about 15 years after their first mass produced HEV. Toyota may not cross the third bridge and mass produce BEVs before 2020/2022 with higher performance lower cost batteries.

Others have a lot to learn from Toyota om successful ways to vehicle electrification.

Nissan plans on having it's Tennessee EV plant in operation late this year. It is designed to produce 150,000 cars per year. That's about 0.3% of worldwide passenger car manufacturing.

Given that Nissan already has manufacturing in Japan and Nissan/Renault is manufacturing in Europe (where EVs make a lot more financial sense), it sure seems that Nissan alone could easily hit 1% capacity by 2020.

Ford set up their Focus assembly lines so that they could switch between gas, diesel and electric with market demand. Given demand they can increase volume in a matter of days.

I can't see a big problem with manufactures being able to produce more than 1% EVs before 2020 if the market demands.

Now, let's assume Secretary Chu is right. Very soon we see affordable, long range EVs. It's time to buy a new car and you are offered a choice between a $25k gasmobile and a $25k 200 mile range electric - same car, same color, same hub caps, same everything except the kind of 'fuel' you put in it.

Let's also assume that the electric corridor that's now appearing from the Canadian boarder down to the Californian boarder has extended to just about anywhere you want to drive. That means that you could drive 500+ miles a day with only two short stops.

Driving an EV is going to cost your $100 to $300 less per month than buying gas at the pump. And it's not going to crimp your style when you go visit Granny.

Which choice would you make?

Out of 100 new car buyers how many do you think would choose the more expensive to drive gas version? Only one?

The new UCLA low cost, very flexible, shock and vibration resistant graphene electrodes ultra capacitors and possibly future much higher performance lower cost batteries could be what Secretary Chu was referring to.

The new graphene electrodes used for (ultra-cap and batteries) could make those two e-storage units almost compatible. Their very high power density would make them ideal for large e-city buses, heavy delivery and garbage trucks, taxis and many other machines.

Who cares what Volvo says, or even what cars they offer.
It's a free market; buy what you want.
- Yah, I know, you want to tell OTHERS what to buy – and tell Volvo what to make.

I believe EVs are the answer but I am starting to worry more, that 2 million EVs x $10,000 per car incentive is too costly.

What do we get for the $20B?

Reduced oil consumption? Insignificant.

Earlier solution to the battery cost/weight shortcoming? Maybe, somewhat;

The Prius is 10 years old and only the free spirits at UCSB think they make fiscal sense; EV market penetration seems to be waning.

And no, $15,000 incentive is NOT the answer.

Small battery PHEVs are the way to go [IMHO] - like the PHRV Prius. "ordinary" hybridisation would be nearly as good.
Both could be combined with diesel engines that many european cars already have.

The trick will be to get the most bang for your buck in terms of delta mpg vs $K. If you were able to add launch assist and the ability to crawl along in heavy traffic, that would be a worthwhile improvement.

EV driving below 30-40 mph would be the next step and so on.
As the batteries get cheaper, they can get larger (year by year). People could have the option of selecting a larger or smaller battery as they felt fit, much in the way larger engines are available on most cars currently.

In an article on this site a couple of years ago (I can't find it...), a spokesman for one of the German automakers basically said that:

"(paraphrasing) Given a finite amount of batteries available (and money to pay for it!), the more cars you distribute those batteries over the greater total fuel savings, you get."

This makes sense because of i) greater utilization of battery capacity, ii) ICE downsizing and iii) slashing the least efficient driving modes of ICEs, such as idling and low-load driving with powerful engines. In that respect, the suggestion of mahonj to allow crawling at <10mph in traffic with the ICE off is a brilliant idea. Of course, all hybrids do this, but what if micro-hybrids could also do it? If the beefed-up starter motor were strong enough to push the car forward, corresponding to the creep of an automatic transmission?

Another feature I would like to see is fuel cutoff at coasting. With the right driving technique - and the right road/traffic modes - the are potentially significant fuel savings there. But only for those of us who get a kick out of efficient driving (not necessarily slow driving!). Again, I'm talking about micro-hybrids.

VW were showcasing with their E-Golf prototype how much can be saved with this driving technique. I have also heard of some crazy drivers in the US who turn off the engine manually on the freeway for short intervals. Extreme Hypermiling, I believe it's called.

Biomass to liquid has yet to prove that it is sustainable. Areas put to use for energy crops would be better of left on their own to be reclaimed by nature in my opinion. Now that would be a huge CO2 sink, to watch huge trees grow where once there was plowed land. Or prairie - which is self-sustainable.

Modern agriculture has problems with soil degradation, and soil is for practical purposes a non-renewable resource. It takes between 200 and 1000 years to generate one inch of soil [Lutgens and Tarbuck, Essentials of Geology, 2008].

Most biomass crops have an energy conversion rate (sunlight to hydrocarbon - sugar, starch, etc.) of just 0.3%. Sugar canes and similar plants are an exception with a conversion efficiency around 8%, but they only grow in strong sunlight where it is warm year-round.

All just circumstantial evidence, I know, but something smells rotten about bio-fuels.

I say we get the bulk of our energy need for personal transportation from electricity (solar, wind, Thorium) and stretch the fossil oil resources another 300-1000 years. And conserve them primarily for aviation - everything else can run on batteries/gas/pulverized coal (ships).

I guess some people believe that real soon now 200 million cars are going to become electric. Take off those binoculars that see out 40 years and look at reality, what are we going to do in the mean time?

THINK people, don't just become true believers while we run out of available oil at a price we can afford, there is no gasoline at the pump and you stand there and say we should have gone electric.