Sorry fester, that link is not all that convincing either.

If that lot had something to crow about, we'd all hear it, without bothering to turn the TV on. My guess, with such a vague report, is they had to test a 250Kw petrol, against a 100Kw diesel, against a 10Kw electric, to get their desired result.

They get away with this stuff, because our journalists are so incompetent. They would do better, long term, if they were truthful.

Unfortunately, I also believe we have reached a plateau with battery development right now. There has been almost as much money thrown at battery development as has been thrown at AGW in recent years. It will come, but the next breakthrough could be decades.

They did not report gas, as a vehical fuel, as distinct from a power generation fuel. That's got to be a bit suspicious, too. Severin is probably right, & gas is the most emission free, as well as cheepest currently available fuel, when used in the car, not the power house.

One of the local youngsters has stuck an electric motor, & a dozen or so led acid batteries in a Hilux ute, he uses for work. It's no hot rod, but gives him about 150 useful kilometres a day, before it gets a bit slow. He reckons the economy is great. His father pays the electricity bill.

I have another of my old cars, almost finished, & I'm thinking of doing something similar. I probably don't do enough Kms to make it pay, battery replacement would probably run about $400 per year, but it should be interesting, & it suits the image, the locals think i'm a nut, all ready.

khazza and rawmustard - the point about where are these green jobs is that was/is the justification for jobs being lost here in the fossil fuel energy and petroleum industries. The mantra was that it was OK that coal mining and other jobs would go, because folks would get jobs in the GI .. so where are they? China you both say, well hang on, that's not going to pay workers mortgages here.

Why are we accepting this?

Why are all your eco warriors accepting jobs being exported? We're not the clever country after all? All those skeptics who said the jobs would not appear here, but overseas were correct .. again!

khazza, I said "I'd prefer to see all the money being p*ssed away on climate science going into energy development and nuclear power development." Who said nuclear is cheaper to build? You did and I wonder why that is relevant, the money being p*issed away on CS could be better used, is what I said. Nuclear is RELIABLE, that's the point, all these hobby renewables are useless as they cannot give consistent return. Don't be against nuclear to be fashionable, be against it if you think it is not feasible .. which are you?

People thought installing insulation was easy, 4 people now have died .. electricity, it's not trivial to deal with and this will get completely out of control as it becomes more common. Batteries require BIG current, that's what kills, and with the cavalier attitude to the trade of between danger and being green, I can see as with the government's insulation scheme, being green is more important than good planning and infrastructure.

It may not turn out to be that way, but when I see throw away lines, like oh there'll be lot's of competition I wonder at people's line of thought. It's early days in the whole renewables development, but there's a reason we insist on standards when dealing with electricity. Homes have water, and if they have high current outlets for charging big batteries, I can just see problems coming.

Rpg its pretty straight forward.
-The jobs that would be lost I should add are ones that WE, the consumers are paying for. I personally welcome any attempt to help expand my options to other forms of energy generation.
-The jobs going overseas is the kicker- the government could easily fund the establishment of renewable energy reactors- or factories to manufacture green cars or power generators, just as easily as they would have sent the money to the coal industry or bailed out our car manufacturers without any obligation to stay in the country.
-PV panels and vertical turbines are reliable too- why wouldn't they be?
They don't even need full-time employees to ensure they keep generating power.
-And I think you should be a little more open-minded. Just because someone would sooner choose a renewable over nuclear it does not mean they're some trendy. It's simply more expensive to establish and maintain, and I personally don't want to have to pay for its continuous power input instead of a one-off purchase of a renewable generator.
-So people have died because of Rudd's dud INSULATION scheme- not a PV/turbine device?
But even with the point of attaching electrical devices to my house- surely that's my choice, as much as it would be to attach an aircon device, fireplace, etc?

Sounds like a fun project, Hasbeen. It reminded me of this site giving instructions for converting a motorcycle:

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-build-a-72Volt-electric-motorcycle/

You are probably right about the ghg emissions, but as someone who doesn't think much of AGW, surely cost per kilometre is the clincher? With power consumption ranging from 16 to 33 kwh per 100 km for this ev,

http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/2008/07/performance-data-for-gwiz-in-london.html

you are looking at energy costs of from three to five dollars per 100 km. Town gas would probably be cheaper than this at two to three dollars per 100 km, but unfortunately Kevin is more interested in broadband than gas mains, so not everyone has this option.

I certainly see a role for electric cars and I'll think they will
become pretty popular, mainly in the cities.

For a start they will help reduce the massive smog that exists
in many Asian, European and US cities.

Secondly, they will assit to remove the OPEC strangehold, which
our present transport depends on. In other words, with less demand,
less likelyhood of 300$ oil in the near future.

The way I understand it, the idea is to use baseload power,
already produced each night but not used, by our present electricity
generation system.

A new energy game changer called shale gas is also coming into play.
Suddenly the US has gone from a gas importer, to a gas exporter,
due to new technology to extract huge volumes of shale gas. So the
thinking is that more power stations will be driven by shale gas
and CSG, rather then coal, as it halves the CO2 problem.

Surveys done in the US showed that most people only travel around
40-50km a day with their cars, so electric vehicles will be ideal
for them. For longer distances, some vehicles will be equipped with
a small conventional engine, which keeps the batteries charged when
required.

Places like Google are already covering the rooves of their carparks
with solar cells, so that batteries can charge whilst people are
at work.

So don't write off EV just yet, they will most certainly play a role
in our transport system. 2c a km for electricity rather then 15c
a km for petrol, will win over many consumers.

Yabby

Hasbeen is correct in pointing out that cng is currently the best option, both in terms of cost and emissions. The downside is that there is little infrastructure, whereas electricity is ubiquitous. Even if you have town gas, you still have to buy the compressor and have the car converted. And with a range of under 300 km and a filling time of 10 hours, the vehicle would be tied to home.

http://www.gasfill.com/