> There's no such thing as an 'electric car'.
> In the US these are primarily coal powered cars. Hardly cleaner than diesel.
> Essentially electric cars are only as clean as whatever powers the
> outlet they are plugged in to.

True, but it's easier to control the emissions at a centralized power
plant than locally at an automobile.  For example, the CO2 from a
coal gassification plant can be piped underground for storage.  I'd
be willing to bet that fewer greenhouse gases come out of a coal
gassification or natural gas plant per kilowatt-hour than out of a
standard automobile.  That's just a guess, though, and it doesn't
take into account the massive number of old, outdated power plants
belching filth into our skies.

> Also they are totally impractical for a large percentage of the
> population. It's usually these California bus pass types that think they
> are a great idea. But if they had to ever live in a rural environment
> like half the population, they'd find out pretty quick that the range of
> today's electric vehicles suck.

"Have to" is such a harsh phrase.  With 20+ mile commutes pretty
common these days, we waste an awful lot of gas.  Many of these
folks that "have to" drive into town from the country and so can't use
an electric car really just don't want to live in town.  They "have to"
have a big yard and "have to" have a big house.  We'll all find out what
becomes of those "needs" if the peak oil predictions come true.

> Hydrogen is a pipe dream. A stupid one. Why waste electricity cracking
> water to create hydrogen to burn?

Agreed, although there are a number of promising possible alternatives
involving microorganisms and chemical reactions.  Hydrogen will never
be a "fuel" any more than batteries will be a fuel.  It's just a convenient
means to transport (hopefully) clean energy from where it's made to
where it's used.

Mike H.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist