It won't happen until we run out of dino-juice. There's no reason for the industry or most buyers to look to alternatives. Once there's no other choice, they'll all shift focus.

I hope I can retrofit a hydrogen drive system to my car for less than $2,000 future dollars.
Or else what's going to happen to this huge pile of millions of perfectly good automobiles with gasoline engines...

I mean, we're basically talking about an industry that has slowly and methodically grown through small evolutionary changes over the last 100 years. Sure fuel prices have doubled, and battery technology is progressing quickly, but I think the industry will continue as it has, with a slow shift to alternatively powered vehicles.

If it were cheaper to produce a car, we could have some people swinging for homeruns. I guess we have that in Telsa right now. But most automakers are content in playing a short-ball game, carefully considering every risk and only taking those that are necessary to survive.

Even the Volt doesn't really seem like GM is swinging for the fences. It's no more innovative to me than the Insight/Prius were ten years ago, and looking back those two vehicles didn't drastically change the market. So even if the Volt has the same success as the Prius has had (1 million units sold) it probably won't do much to change the other vehicles on the road, at least not in the short term.

Finally, Karl, we agree on something.

Nothing will change until US government takes its head out of its ass and raises gasoline taxes. To painful levels. Because for vast majority of Americans gas is dirt cheap.

I think electric cars will be the big seller when the batteries that can propel it a reasonable distance become cheap and plentiful.

The only reason electric cars are so expensive is the cost of the batteries and the amount of other technology needed to stretch the range of the tiny amount of energy they hold. An electric cars hould be much cheaper and easier to make (and run) then a gasoline cars.

It can be a long road to develop a new technology. Once someone does though, the price will fall fast.

I'm guessing as common as the Smart in 2-3 years and mainstream in 10 years.

BTW, we will never run out of dino-juice. It will just get more and more expensive as it gets more and more scarce. As it does we will just use less and less.

Yeah, let's tax gas more. I mean, we know the government is so responsible with our tax money, after all. And the fact that I've already had to make some lifestyle changes due to higher gas prices really demonstrates that I'm not at all affected by the higher gas prices.

For the majority of Americans, gasoline is a significant part of monthly budget. To think otherwise is foolish.

I'm agree with the opinion that it won't happen until a more drastic oil-related crisis happens. Obviously the oil price jump hasn't had enough of an impact on the general population, if we're all just able to 'eat' out bigger fuel bills.

When it jumps even higher, or runs out all together, thats when change happens. Change comes out of necessity, and right now a non-oil/gas vehicle is not necessary.

vvk - why dont you take your head out of your ass, and relize TAXES arent the answer.

and if they are, send me some money, I need it, your obivously too stupid to spend it well.

If I keep hearing movie trailers when I go to Straightline, I'm quitting the site for good.

Anyway, I'm pretty happy with the state of modern gasoline-powered cars. A small family can get along just fine with a 30mpg subcompact hatch that's fun to drive and not nearly as compact as the things many of us grew up in. A larger family has less efficient but still pretty good options. And if you want more power than what it takes to go 0-60 in 10 seconds, it's available on the lots.

I'm more concerned about emissions and PZEV takes care of that for me. I hope we get more and more of those.

Meanwhile I hope hydrogen wins out, so my dream of one day owning a rotary remains reasonable.

Gasoline and diesel are extremely cheap once you take into account some of the other commodities that we use every day. Think, for example, if you had to fill your car with beer. Let's say that a case of cheap beer goes for $15. There is 2.25 gallons of beer in a case (12 oz. cans x 24 cans). The cost is $6.67/gallon, higher than diesel (at least here in Chicago). Now, suppose you needed to fill your car with olive oil. Let's say that it costs $4 for 12 oz. of olive oil, that would be roughly $42.67/gallon!

The problem with gasoline is that it is still incredibly cheap! Even in the current economic situation, unless we get cars to run on milk or tap water, gas isn't expensive. I agree with Karl, it will be 2030 at the earliest that we see a complete alternative to gas. Meaning, that the vehicle isn't a hybrid, there is infrastructure in place to support fueling as well as the infrastructure to create the fuel.

I don't think we need to raise the taxes on gasoline, but I think VVK had a point that if the govt raised taxes on gas, these "futurecars" would come sooner because there would be more of a demand.

Also, if a technological breakthrough would occur, say with large Li-ion batteries, that would certainly speed up their arrival.

Or if the price of oil goes up, that would increase demand as well.

But from this chair, I don't see a significant portion of our populace dropping 40,000 dollars on a Volt, or even more on a larger plugin car anytime before gas is $10.00 a gallon, or the price drops to ~25,000 bucks. And every other "futurecar" is even more expensive, or even further out in the production queue.

It will be interesting to see the Honda Insight and next gen Prius. I think those cars will be closer to what we see over the next 10 years than any of these elecric concepts.

Just as gasoline, electricity (yes, electric vehicles), and steam all competed for market share in cars in the early 1900's, gas, electric, and now hydrogen (ethanol, or sun power or w/e too) will all compete for the next 20 or so years. There will be a winner, and it may not even exist yet, but Im betting hydrogen. Gas was the least favored 100 years ago because people were affraid of their gas tanks exploding (this was considered very volitile stuff back then).

I dont think anyone disagrees with what has been said here. What credible person has ever suggested that we would be free of gas powered cars within the next decade or two? None that I am aware of. Our nation is built around gas powered cars and it will take drastic changes for that to change. Cars are getting more efficient but not drastically so. Most people will get accustomed to $3.50 gas an eventually that wont be thought of as expensive.

I do question what "experts" Karl is referring to in regards to behavior changing in the US. Its undeniable that behaviors have changed since gas prices have risen and I'm not sure why Karl is obsessed with trying to pretend everyone has simply adjusted to these prices and moved on. Miles driven is down, SUV sales are down, public transportation usage is up, road trip vacations are down, etc. People may not have been driven back to the horse and buggy days but changes have been made.

"vvk - why dont you take your head out of your ass, and relize TAXES arent the answer."

If you want to reduce usage of something you tax it. I would say anyone who doesnt realize that is pretty stupid. No politician is really serious about reducing our oil usage and that's why gas taxes never go up. Politicians pay lip service to "getting off foreign oil" and then come up with ideas that place all the blame on oil companies and car manufacturers.

"For the majority of Americans, gasoline is a significant part of monthly budget. To think otherwise is foolish."

The blog author begs to differ.

1487,

For the most part, I agree with your last post. Little aggressive on calling people stupid for not seeing that taxes can adjust behaviour.

Waiting for the lightning...

"and if they are, send me some money, I need it, your obivously too stupid to spend it well."

I was referencing that comment. I dont normally call people stupid. Americans are so bound by poltical idealogies that they are incapable of engaging in a logical conversation that acknowledges certain baseline facts such as more taxes equals less consumption.

What about natural gas guys? We hear a lot about T. Boone Pickens lately. We have loads more natural gas than oil in this country. They just found the largest deposit of natural gas in the world in my home state (Louisiana). 150 new millionaires so far. Practically over night.

I know its still a fossil fuel. We still have the emissions and so forth. But it could be a relatively easy transition to natural gas. And eventually to hydrogen from there.

Any thoughts?

There's a difference between taxing a luxury and a necessity. There is a certain amount of gas that Americans need in order to get to and from work, the grocery store, etc.

Given the recent rise in gas prices, gas consumption for non-required items like vacations has certainly gone down. However, if you drive up the price of gas through taxation in order to promote alternative fuel sources, you'll end up hurting all of American by reducing the effective buying power of your average Americans.

This will cause a ripple that will be felt in all markets, furthering the depression that America is entering.

I don't forsee a large gas tax offsetting even over the next 10 years the harm that it would do to our economy.

I agree that more taxes on something reduce the consumption of that item. But more taxes on a necessity reduce standards of living.

Yeah well higher gas taxes would likely lead to better roads and bridges and lower consumption. I dont think anyone in their right mind would propose a doubling or tripling of the tax in one year. Phased increases would make much more sense and would reduce the possibility of a drastic reduction in consumer spending. All I know is they pay more for gas in other places and their roads and bridges look much better than ours. Our infrastructure is incredibly dated and poorly maintained. In order to keep driving cheap the government doesnt ask drivers to pay the full costs of road upkeep.

My taxes pay for the roads we have. So I would say that yes, as a driver, I'm paying the full cost of road upkeep.

What's the point of decreasing utilization of our roads and then improving them? That strikes me as rather counter productive.

Also, while most countries pay more for gas, most countries also have a well developed public transportation system which renders automobiles to be a luxury rather than a necessity. So you're comparing apples to oranges.

They could at least turn the gas tax into a percentage, not a fixed cents-per-gallon number.

I call 2025 until we see a majority of non gasoline powered cars.

Natural gas and hydrogen both are limited in that transporting them in cars requires high pressure gas tanks. While I could see this being overcome with new materials to make better tanks, to hold the gases at higher pressures, we still need viable distribution systems. The Honda Phill system is not a viable alternative (my hometown area doesn't even have natural gas lines), so we'd need a network of distribution lines to existing gas stations. That's expensive.

As for hydrogen, no way, not going to happen for at least 25 years. People like hydrogen because it allows for fuel cells, which emit only water. I consider the benefits of that to be almost a farce compared to any internal combustion engine with any emissions. It's expensive to make fuel cell components, and no economies of scale will bring those costs down in the near term. Hydrogen has all of the downsides of transporting a gas, and has basically no network in place for refueling. It's just not economically viable for everyday transportation in light of the alternatives.

I think we'll see cars running mostly on electricity in the near future, probably with a Chevy Volt style hybrid component at first. The ICE is not going away anytime soon (my apologies to Al Gore), it's simply going to get better. Unlike hydrogen, which is being sought after almost exclusively for automotive purposes, batteries have a near universal appeal. Batteries are used in everything, and everyone wants them to be better (who doesn't want brighter flashlights, longer playback times on their iPods, the ability to go a week without plugging your laptop in?). The potential for innovation here is so much greater, which is why I think batteries will power our cars in the future.

Another related note: one of my professors at college, Donald Sadoway, is very interested in new materials design. His research involves both battery technology and research into making magnesium more economical to produce. His stated goal is to see cars that run solely on electricity within his lifetime, and I have little doubt he'll see that. I think that the next decade will see the proliferation of that technology into cars. Saving weight is the holy grail for automotive materials, and I see lightweight materials and composites as being another logical step to look for.

Europeans have huge taxes on gasoline and what did they achieve? The only idea they came up is to embrace ancient Diesel engine! I can hardly call it exciting development and it is not an American way to solve the problem. American way is to come up with absolutely new and exciting technology driven by newly formed start up companies - new boom and IPOs (new bubble if you want), new wealth creation. Rest of the world will follow soon. No infrastructure? It will be built quickly as soon as there is a demand. We were able to build Interstate Highway System in short period of time!

What is important – do not follow Europeans – they normally do things wrong way. Look instead to East – future is in Asia and Asia moves in the same direction as America.

The automotive alternative energy future that makes some sense to me has the following steps.

1) Congress passes a flexible fuel vehicle mandate, creating a growing population of cars that can use methanol and ethanol along with gasoline.

2) As gasoline prices gradually rise, eventually making methanol from coal becomes less expensive than making gasoline from oil. Economics drives rapid expansion of methanol infrastructure.

3) Fuel cells that can use methanol improve in parallel with the expanding methanol fuel infrastructure. Superior efficiency of fuel cells vs. the internal combustion engine combined with electric motor torque, low noise, and low maintenance cost allows fuel cell electric cars to capture increasing market share.

If steps 2 and 3 don't work out, we only pay low hundreds extra per car for corrosion resistant hardware, hot rod friendly high flow fuel injectors, and an unnecessary optical sensor for flexible fuel cars running on gasoline.

I want to like compressed natural gas powered cars, but any increase in the price of natural gas relative to liquid fuel destroys the economic rational for building cars with big, heavy high pressure fuel tanks. Still too much pain for not enough gain.

"it is not an American way to solve the problem. "

There's an American way to solve this problem?

How have you solved this problem?

"American way is to come up with absolutely new and exciting technology " such as what? got anything in mind?

It's great to cheer for new technology that hasn't been invented yet but if you want a solution you need to start with something that works.

Europeans like diesels and they like small cars. Both those ideas work.

It's great place to start.

1st, Europeans like diesel for one reason: its cheaper then gas, why? because gasoline is taxed more. Its not like there was a option between cheap gas and cheap diesels. To say otherwise is just plain ignorance.

And I will stand by be stance that anyone for increasing taxes, is just an idiot.

Ask your self this question: with the amount of money the goverment collects now, is it spending it wisely?

Then: Do you think you could better spend that money then the goverment?

If you think the goverment spends money wisely, and can spend it better then you, then by all means start sending them more cash.

I for one, see goverment as a money waster, in-efficent spending, using money to control behavior to whatever the current leaders mood is. Its a tool of power, that I'd rather not give them.

for those that want to increase gas taxes, please answer me this:

Why?

What benefit is there to having gas cost more? Is higher gas going to enhance your quality of life?
Is higher gas going to make the roads better?

Why do you want to pay more for something?

If your goal is to force people to drive different cars, then the free market works. This year gas prices spiked, and drivers used less gas. Automakers were shaken to the core, and some may/will fail. More fuel efficent cars will be built because the market will demand it.

All without the goverment doing anything.

Anyone thats for increasing taxes is just for more goverment control, a bigger goverment, less freedom, and more control.

"What is important – do not follow Europeans – they normally do things wrong way."

That is a sweepingly bold generalization and I'm pretty blown away the thought even entered your head. Just because its different from how you American's do it does not mean its the wrong way.

When you consider Europe's transportation system on all levels, its pretty clear they have things down pat. They have more variable, efficient and cheaper public transit; they have far worse laid out cities (wrt roads) but somehow have less gridlock (in general); their airlines are affordable and for the most part self sustaining; they support their own 'local' car manufacturers; they embrace alternate technologies like diesel...

So, it seems to me that the US has a lot to learn from Europe with respect to all facets of transportation. I'd much rather live in their system then in ours.

opfreakx and heffling obviously are OK with driving on crumbling roads, risking life and limb when crossing bridges and riding old, poorly maintained buses and trains. They are also fine, apparently, with the congestion in every major metropolitan area caused by too many people living too far from places they need to visit.

I personally would not mind paying $10 or $15 per gallon in order to be able to drive 100 mph on a perfectly smooth and well engineered autobahn when I want to take a road trip. I would like to see our police officers and state troopers enforce real road safety instead of trying to collect road tax in the form of speeding tickets. I also would prefer to ride in a comfortable, quiet, clean and MODERN bus (or better yet, an electric trolley-bus) or train to work without adding to severe road congestion and pollution in the city I love and care about. I like the idea of equitable pay for resources used that a fuel tax implies AUTOMATICALLY. The more I drive -- the more I pay. The more I use public resources such as roads and bridges -- the more I pay. If I have (and, most importantly, can AFFORD) a large family -- I am glad to pay extra fuel tax because I drive a large van or SUV. If I am affluent enough to have a boat that I tow with my gas-guzzling SUV -- I have no problem with paying extra fuel tax because I USE MORE. More space, more fuel, more road (heavier SUVs wear out road surface more than lighter cars,) more RISK OF INJURY OR DEATH to others if I have a collision (medical bills, loss of taxable income, etc. -- all public costs.)

We should get rid of all tolls on our public highways. They cause severe congestion and cost us as a society way too much money in lost productivity, increased fuel consumption and pollution. Instead, roads should be paid for by fuel taxes.

We should improve our public transportation at least to the level of Canada. Eventually we should strive to improve it to rival European or Japanese. This should also be paid for by fuel taxes. The more you drive instead of taking the bus or the train -- the more you should subsidize others who do. We should make it a) convenient and b) financially attractive to ride public transportation. We should overhaul our streets to have (better) sidewalks and to be more attractive for people who want to walk. We should encourage inner city development and strive to attract middle class back to our cities. Suburban sprawl is a terrible cancer that eats our society alive. We should rebuild our crumbling cities with beautiful high-rise buildings and neighborhoods that would be attractive and safe for middle class people to return to and raise their families.

And we MUST PAY FOR IT!

"Do you think you could better spend that money then the goverment?"

Judging by the current economic state of the US, I would say the people, the government and business all get a failing grade in knowing how to spend (or not spend) money).

"1st, Europeans like diesel for one reason: its cheaper then gas, why? because gasoline is taxed more. Its not like there was a option between cheap gas and cheap diesels. To say otherwise is just plain ignorance."

Diesel is cheaper then gas because it cost less to make. As for there only being one reason, how about far better mileage, better durabilty, far more torque for a given engine size....

"We should improve our public transportation at least to the level of Canada"

Actually New York has a better transit system then any Canadian city. It's the only city I have been to where you could get by without a car.

I agree with opfreakx, AND vvk until his last paragraph. Why should people who aren't using "public transportation" be forced to pay for it? This is the same (excluding a "green" sway) as asking "public transit" users to pay for our roads (which they currently do in part though non fuel-tax funding (fed income, etc.) Our roads are just as much public transportation as our buses and rail systems are. Taxes pay for the roads, users provide the vehicle and the fuel. "Public transit" users are provided the tracks, stations, energy, and vehicles through taxes, and they pay the fare to use it. In a way they are renting part of the vehicle and the fuel/electricity. So if you're going to be consistent and support the idea of a somewhat free market you need fuel taxes to pay for roads, and passenger rail fares to pay for the rails, cars, energy, and stations. Buses are a blend of both, your fare should cover the taxed fuel, and the bus. Of course I am generalizing somewhat here. There are also bus drivers, engineers (in the traditional sense), insurance costs, etc. that also need to be paid for.

As opfreak said, on top of all of this, and really you could say this for anything the government puts their sloppy hands in, they need to use the amount of money they're already receiving more efficiently. That doesn't necessarily mean buy a cheaper hammer though, because often that costs you more in the long run.

"Why should people who aren't using "public transportation" be forced to pay for it?"

Every person who takes public transit is one less person on the road backing up traffic.

I'm willing to chip in to make my morning drive less stop and go.

"Judging by the current economic state of the US, I would say the people, the government and business all get a failing grade in knowing how to spend (or not spend) money)."
Unfortunately I guess I have to agree with you there. However I think our government is the biggest promoter of a debt based economy.

"Diesel is cheaper then gas because it cost less to make. As for there only being one reason, how about far better mileage, better durabilty, far more torque for a given engine size...."
Yes. Busting on the Europeans for utilizing diesel engines to their advantage is just stupid. I do find it interesting however, that many Europeans don't seem to be too fond of diesel engines actually. They seem to want them for pure economics. They don't get nerdy about it like us American enthusiasts. Probably because it's common for them and rare for us.

I forgot to mention in my previous post, nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does the federal government promise to provide transportation "everyone can afford". Some people have an unfounded belief that the government is responsible for that.

"As opfreak said, on top of all of this, and really you could say this for anything the government puts their sloppy hands in, they need to use the amount of money they're already receiving more efficiently. "

I cant stand these types of vague generalizations. You needs certain amounts of money to do certain things. State DOTs cannot randomly tap into the budgets of other departments just because they need more funding. government wastes a lot (just like the average American and private enterprise) but everytime you cut a service or scale back an operation you affect a constituent and that leads to complaints. You folks sound like the types who believe you can balance a federal budget by simpyl "finding efficiencies" and "cutting the fat". Those are bogus notions passed off by politicians who are afraid to say they cant afford to do what they are promising to do. As someone who is familiar with construction costs and contracts let me tell you that "efficiencies" dont mean squat in relation to the total cost of doing major construction projects. There isnt enough money available to keep our roadways state of the art, period. Most construction costs are fixed and no amount of "efficient spending" is enough to offset the costs of labor and materials. You guys obviously have no idea what the average construction worker gets paid per hour in 2008. The only things America has been willing to pay for in order to get a top notch product is military systems and equipment. We never have a problem shelling out money for a world beating military but when it comes to other things people say "they dont need more funding, just more efficiency". Amazing how the Pentagon doesnt have to live by those rules and gets more money every year.

Another thing, almost every dime spent by any government agency is seen a positive thing by some group of people. There are no easy cuts when it comes to government spending and at some point you have to increase revenue if you want to accomplish certain things.

"Why should people who aren't using "public transportation" be forced to pay for it?"

That same ridiculous question could be asked of any service that a particular taxpayer doesnt use. WHy do I have to pay for military spending that doesnt benefit me? Why do elderly people have to pay taxes towards schools? Why do I have to pay for free school lunches if my child doesnt use them? Why do I have to pay for new stadiums that I cant afford to attend? The list goes on.

"We should rebuild our crumbling cities with beautiful high-rise buildings and neighborhoods that would be attractive and safe for middle class people to return to and raise their families."

I agree with your sentiment but back off the generalizations of city neighborhoods. Plenty of middle class people live in America's cities. Try watching the 11PM news a little less. There is no coverage of middle or upper class people in urban areas, only urban crime. It amazes me how people who live in the suburbs are so prone to ridiculous stereotypes. NYC, Boston, San Diego, etc. are some of the most expensive places to live in the US.

"Anyone thats for increasing taxes is just for more goverment control, a bigger goverment, less freedom, and more control."

Who here (or anywhere) is begging for more taxes? No one. The fact is that you cant get certain things done without sufficient revenue. Our roads indicate that we have been starving our infrastructure for quite some time and something is going to give. Most civil engineers who study this type of thing will tell you America's infrastructure is behind the times and in need of major infusion of capital. If you know how to do that without getting more revenue let me know instead of going on anti "big government" tirades. Sometimes additional money is needed just to flow into projects, not to hire thousands of new workers or to expand the size of government. In my city the capital budget is increasing (because it needs to) but the staffing of the department that handles capital projects is not increasing proportionally. More money for more badly needed projects. Its not rocket science.

1487, vvk is for higher taxes, he wants to pay 10-15 bucks a gallon, which at current rates means about 6-10 dollars goes to the goverment.

spare me, if I think that a 120 dollar to 180 dollar fill up on my sunfire seems a bit extreme.

The stupidty of people here is just amazing, if you cant find a goverment budget thats full of fat your blind.

The problem is everyone has their own pet projects, you might want world class roads, your neighbor wants world class trains, next door the guy wants the nicest schools in the world.

then just add in a few million for a stupid museum here and their, a bridge that will survice 300 drivers tops. ETC ETC ETC.

everyone wants, but no one wants to pay.

f-it, lets all just depend on the goverment. be mindless robots.

please spare me this tired old rant that goverment always needs more and more and more money.

when times were good, and everyone was driving 10 million miles a year the goverment was swiming in gasoline taxes. where did all that money go? poof, disappeared.

"poof, disappeared"

Actually "boom, disappeared" is better way to put it. Bush literally blew it away in a lame attempt to rule the world.

OPfreak is right. If government wants to do projects they should just ask contractors nicely and see if they get a discount. That's how the real world works. Lets ask contractors to do 150% of the work they are doing now for the EXACT same amount of money and see how far we get. Ideally we could cut defense spending and put that money into roads and other worthy projects but we all know that aint going to happen so revenue has to be derived from somewhere.

1487 your amazing.

What i'm saying is that every goverment budget has pork.

As do most household budget.

in my house I currently pay for cable, monthly zune membership, and a netflix account, If times get rough, geuss what, all 3 will be canceled overnight.

The 'bailout' bill passed, included millions of dollars for: auto racing, rum, wooden arrows, etc etc.

If your telling me that your local goverments dont have waste full spending, I'll show you someone thats blind.