Ludwig, I agree with Yabby the plugin electric car is the end game for
personal transport.
Batteries will become more efficient to some extent and as the batteries
are not intrinsic to the propulsion system they can be updated without
scrapping the car.
My ideal electric car would have a removable petrol charging unit.
If you intention was just to travel locally say 100km you do not have the
petrol generator loaded, but for longer trips the generator is placed
into the vehicle. This gives the advantage of longer range because of
weight saving for local journeys.

The Prius Hybrid while a commercial success is a technical failure because
it uses more fuel that some of the European diesels.

Ludwig.
The SBS program about “future cars” last night was very interesting more so for the issues that they ignored or only mentioned in passing offering no comment on how to combat them.
e.g. The public’s fascination with as Top Gear put it “POW-WER!” including torque, speed, and cool. (An ego extension).
The most contentious issues were those that centre around vested interests. Vehicles are in marketing terms “cash cow phase” they require little input and reluctant reticent to commit to less profitable (all be it short term) change. Business is about profit and community good is simply a marketing option.
The Rocky Mountains Research team built a carbon fibre composite car using other technology. It is faster, more efficient (less than 30% fuel consumption and 60% less pollution), lighter stronger, better designed (less parts easier to make and fix) and was simular size and aesthetics to current models. The mainstream manufactures claimed that carbon composite was too expensive (a logically dubious statement). What they really mean is that it would be as profitable.
The “Volt” only has a 20 mile battery charge 200 with fuel motor assistance. Yet other cars featured had much better efficiencies 40 Miles on electric and 600 with fuel assistance and much less pollution. “Volt’s” but release date is undetermined.
Logic would suggest that such models would simply out compete current investment and is a compromise option. Or was a claytons option.
Also there would fear of competition from smaller players and market dominance/market control i.e. profit guarantees.
From the workers perspective less car workers and associated industries jobs.
Oil companies also fear loss of control and/or cost of new infrastructure.
Consider those corporations whose profitable products are banned/controlled in one country simply seek more “unsophisticated” markets. e.g. Tobacco and chemicals.
Capitalism is only good if you’re on the winning side.
A change will need Govt authority but given Corporate influence of Governments and public manipulation through fear of the unknown. All this reminds me of the Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times”. What do you tink and/or propose?

Examinator,
The change will come, there will eventually be no other choice.
There is another factor that will worry the motor trade in particular.
The very much reduced need of servicing.
Instead of 10,000 to 15,000 km services you will be looking at 100,000km
services and that will mainly be for brakes.
By that time some battery cells may be failing but even that could be
an easy job for the owner provided the manufacturer does not build the
whole lot as a sealed pack.
I have seen a suggested arrangement where each cell is monitored
individually by a PIC and the number of the cell displayed.
Interesting motoring times ahead.

Tom, a small and perhaps petty point, but as one that was involved in the aXess project I must point out that the 'bureaucracy' fought to continue with the project. It was a purely political decision to cancel it. I feel that the influence of Detroit went way beyond ethical limits.

Why is it that our car companies don't seem able to pick up any of these technologies themselves, what happened to the team Holden put together?

Tom

From my post of 6 July:

“Unfortunately, the hybrid technology that Tom Gosling is espousing is not getting much of a look-in here.

Tom, what do you think about these options?”

I’d love to hear from you