The electric car is a technological cul-de-sac

October 6, 2009

The End Is Nigh is always an arresting headline, the end which is nigh now is the Age of Oil, following the deep thoughts of the boffins at Deutsche Bank.

They are forecasting a “game change” as a result of – wait for it – the electric car. Their thoughts are “unburdened by the conflicting forecasting agendas of government agencies, oil companies or auto makers”, so can roam the intellectual highways and byways.

They postulate a price spike to 175 dollars around 2016, followed by an “equilibrium” price around 100 dollars by 2030. The shock will be enough for the electric car to displace the conventional automobile, and OPEC will eventually be reduced to cutting prices to maintain its market share.

These projections are far enough into the future to ensure that nobody will remind Paul Sankey and his fellow authors of their words if they turn out to be hideously wrong.

Even at hundred-dollar oil, the electric car is a technological dead-end, and the battery is the roadblock. The technology is improving, but there is no sign of the “breakthrough” that might put energy storage capacity within an order of magnitude of the petrol tank. Nor is there a solution to the question of charging times – and the faster a battery is charged, the less efficient the process becomes.

The size of the problem can be simply illustrated: if a dozen cars are filling up simultaneously, the energy transfer (of fuel into the tanks) is equivalent to the output of a medium-sized power station.

Then there is the question of the cost of the exotic materials needed to squeeze more from batteries and electric motors. Rare earth elements, with unpronounceable names and mostly found in China, are crucial to modern technology, but electric and hybrid cars eat them wholesale.

 Rare earths will no more run out than will oil, but they may get much more expensive. That Toyota Prius sitting so smugly outside your house is full of them. It presents a tempting target for the same scrap metal merchants who helped themselves to manhole covers during last year’s commodity boom.

Compared to the petrol, or better still, diesel engine, the electric car is a poor use of primary energy. Fuel must be burned to generate the power, which must then be transmitted and stored in the battery. Each process costs energy, and the total thermodynamic efficiency is less than that of internal combustion.

The air quality in cities may be marginally better, but improved exhaust controls will do that far more cheaply. So here’s my prediction for 2030: the electric car will turn out to be a vast, and unnecessary diversion of technological effort.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Good article and spot on. 100 years ago, battery cars were popular in towns and were called ‘Doctors Cars’ because they started immediately and at any time but their range was small and speed low. Not a lot has changed

The future should be small light cars with light weight diesel engines. With a performance, comfort and safety better than current cars but delivering 200+ miles per gallon. All perfectly possible now if anyone wants to make one. And that’s just a starter for now, better is possible.

Don’t think of bubble cars, think formula 1 with 2 seats!

Posted by Paul Wiley | Report as abusive

I find you article very interesting, and I really hope you are right. I am really fed up with all the hassle on new energy,etc…

Posted by Second commento | Report as abusive

Own oil stocks? It is not electric car, it is better photoelectric cells that will make EVs more appealing.

Posted by Own oil? | Report as abusive

This article ignores the way in which pure “internal combustion” vehicles waste the gravitational potential energy released whilst going down hills, and the kinetic energy dissipated whilst slowing down. You apply the brakes, and the brake-pads turn ALL of that energy into heat.

Hybrids have a higher OVERALL efficiency due to their ability to recover kinetic energy and gravitational potential as electrical energy. Dynamos attached to the drive system do this job. This electrical energy would be of no use if you couldn’t store it and/or turn it back into kinetic energy again. Although the storage capacity of the battery is small, this usually does not matter much for a hybrid because usually, soon after braking/ going downhill, you are accelerating/ going uphill again.

Interesting points though about the rare materials… Naturally the energy & cost of extracting those should be included in the overall evaluation…

Not so fast! The break-through has not been made for electric cars yet. However, further into the future, the Hydrogen car seems the most realistic bet.

Posted by John Nichols | Report as abusive

I think technology making internal combustion engines more efficient and environment friendly, than makind electric cars energy for which will be produced by nuclear plants, solar/wind/water and other renewable energy sources.
whatever the technology of future (2030) it is to run on anything but OIL.

Posted by David | Report as abusive

Great article. It looks so far you’re right, though hybrid cars are more efficient. But you never know, things can change.

Posted by Remmelt | Report as abusive

This article misses some crucial points. The author is right to suggest that pure electric cars are unlikly to be significant – too much weight, not enough range.

But the plug-in hybrid (20 – 30 mile electric range + internal combustion engine) may well work in the volume car market. The trick is that most individual trips are less than 10 miles and average daily mileage is less than 20 miles a day. So if you do the calculations, with a small battery charged overnight at home you can replace 80+% of you gasoline needs, while still having the internal combustion engine on the infrequent trips you want to do more than 25 miles.

The rare eath point is a red herring as the latest battery technologies do not use them and Lithium is found in vast quantities as a salt compound.

Plug in hydbrids should be fun to drive (good acceleration from electric motor), and much chaper to run. So if they are adopted the Deutche Bank Study may provve to be correct.

Posted by Hamish Grant | Report as abusive

This article might have been correct, had it been written 10 years ago.

The efficiency of Prius-type hybrid is higher – they regenerate energy as they brake and put the internal combustion engine at more efficient rpm.

The well-to-wheel efficiency of electric cars used to be lower than IC-based cars. Currently electric cars show better efficiency and they have a lot of potential improvements coming! While the author used the point that each transfer of energy lowers the efficiency, he forgets that a ‘highly-efficient’ IC engine runs at 30% efficiency. Plus, because of the mechanical components and rpm, further loss of efficiency occurs. An electric engine can have an efficiency of 98% and if it is placed on the wheels, it delivers the energy right where it is needed. There are, of course, roadblocks to cross – but it is an ongoing engineering process.

The point about rare earths is valid but I do not think this is going to stop the development.

Posted by pesho simov | Report as abusive

To say that electric cars are a dead end, is rather shortsighted. The truth is we don’t know yet if it will be or not. But i guarantee you that oil IS a dead end, even if you don’t take the climate aspect into account, it’s going to run out eventually. So we’d better look for alternatives.
Electricity can also be made from non fossil fuels. If the battery problem is solved for cars, the energy storage problems for solar and wind energy would also be solved, which is one of the biggest barriers of these technologies.
In a couple of years, if we’re lucky, we might even have polywell fusion reactors to provide us with clean energy.
Hydrogen is most definitely a red herring, it’s inefficient to produce, inefficient to transport and store on location, requires very heavy and expensive fuel cells or very heavy pressurized tanks. A regular current state of technology battery is more efficient than hydrogen ever will be, and we already have an infra-structure for it!
Algae based fuel -might- work though.

Posted by Sander van Rossen | Report as abusive

And what about the most obvious thing. Less of all transport. Many of us commute to work/school/college to sit at PC’s all day that we could just as easily do at home, or a local internet cafe etc. And bussiness travel is mostly pointless – use videoconferencing more. So let’s travel less altogether!

Posted by Russell | Report as abusive

I believe too electric cars are a dead end. The amount of power required to charge the batteries is wasted and not efficient.

To produce electricity you need to burn more coal, oil, gas, create turbines for wind power.

And heh use nuclear fuels. Which ofc are not renewable, enviromental unfriendly and still nobody talks about the nuclear wastes that we dump them worlwide waiting for the next generations to sort out. Still the 1950′s wastes haven being sorted. And planning to produce more. Also don’t forget Uranium availability will stop before we run out of Oil.

Hydrogent while not existing on it’s on in nature, can be produced quite easily requiring less energy than charging batteries and not changing the way of “driving” either. Coal gassification, Solar power plants breaking down salt water to Hydrogen, Oxygen, and electric power at the same time, can provide the pure clean start to continue it’s spread.

Except Fussion comes in before 2080, while still Hydrogent will be a viable option to use the power generated, and move on until self sustained reactors at home and cars by the end of the century.

Posted by Panos | Report as abusive

The private automobile is a dead end. Our yearly global production of oil is on a plateau and will eventually decline. That decline is a geological inevitability, since the planet hasn’t made any oil for millions of years. Yearly automobile miles driven will decline with it. The price of oil, gasoline, plastics, and petrochemicals will increase, and so too will the price of building, owning, and operating a car. Poorer people will get priced out of the market first. Eventually the automobile will once again be the status symbol of the rich. Perhaps there will be too much resentment from former drivers to allow even that.

In the meantime, I’ll correct the author’s misapprehension about the overall efficiency of electrics. Convert a car to electric propulsion and you roughly double the “oil well to wheels” efficiency, even with all the losses along the way. Consider that a normal car has a real world efficiency of about 15%.

Hydrogen as an energy carrier has a basic physics problem. It can’t carry enough energy per cubic whatever at normal air pressure. It makes transporting it any distance a net energy loser.

Russel’s comment about traveling less is the real point. We will travel less, either voluntarily or involuntarily, as the yearly flow of fossil fuels declines. If we do nothing, the problem will solve itself, but not in a nice way.

@Pescho, you are forgetting transmission losses of electricity from the power plant to the point of use. I carpooled with an electrical engineer who designed high voltage power distribution systems and he said that the best efficiency from power plant to the home was something like 60%. That’s the losses of already produced power (which has efficiency losses from converting oil/natural gas to steam to generate electric). Therefore the article is very likely correct that when you compare a 15% efficient IC engine (this was the standard when I was taking automechanics class, 20% was an engine in good tune, remember the ideal Otto cycle engine is 30%) to all the losses from the generating station to a purely electric car. Also the article was comparing a true electric car, not hybrids, to an IC car.

@ Hamish, the “rare earth” is not a “red herring” as it is not the batteries that use “rare earth’s” its the MOTORS because the “rare earth’s” that are referred to in the article are MAGNETS.

My take is that gasoline-electric hybrids are a waste of time. If we were really concerned about mileage and saving fuel, car companies would use a diesel-hybrid. Manus should EASILY be able to get 100 mpg from a diesel-hybrid. The only practical 100% electric car on the near horizon would have to use some kind of fuel cell, unless there is some breakthrough in battery that has eluded scientists for the past 75+ years, which I doubt there will be.

Posted by Al | Report as abusive

@Minor, while I find very little to disagree about with your post, you state that there has not been any oil made in millions of years. We don’t know if that’s true or not. There are some scientists who hold that the nuclear process going on at the core of the planet may be what generated the oil to begin with. Therefore, it may actually be a “renewable” resource, though it may not have a sufficient replacement rate to keep up with our usage.

Or it may not. There’s a LOT about our planet that we do not know.

Posted by al | Report as abusive

Competition among the prospective technologies will lead to a resolution of this question – unless governments make the decision. Only governments can force the wrong choice.

Posted by Paolo | Report as abusive

Wow, another pseudo science right wing article. I guess we should just give up on the whole electric car deal then, along with the wasteful wind towers, solar generation and geothermal.
I could rip the ‘science’ of this article apart, but I think I’d prefer to morosely think about how easy it is for media to ‘set the agenda’ of what we think. It’s not cool to come out directly against global warming any more, those people are seen to be the luddites that they are, so we make easy puff pieces that ‘question’ this new green movement. Try posting this article on a tech blog – I dare you, and you will be torn to shreds.

Posted by James Perly | Report as abusive

The crux of the problem is twofold: 1) the abysmally low thermodynamic efficiency of the ancient internal combustion engine, and 2) miswiring of the human brain that demands a 1:1 ratio between testosterone and gasoline.

A little-known engineer named Steve Jansen (Jerseyville, Illinois) has solved the efficiency issue. His isothermal engine is two and a half TIMES more thermodynamically efficient than gas/diesel. Now all you’ve gotta do is change human nature… or wait until gasoline is so damned expensive that sheer desperation trumps the drag-racer factor of demanding that 6,000 pound SUVs go 0 to 60 in 5 seconds.

Posted by D. Benton Smith | Report as abusive

In reply to pesho simov
Just to keep everyone honest, you mentioned that the most efficient cars have 30% efficiency and EV have 98%…but you’re not including the efficiency of the coal fired electric plants. Off hand I don’t know what it is: Could be 90% could be 30%. Then you multiply that with the 98%. I’m just saying, lets keep it honest.

Posted by Jason | Report as abusive

oops, Al beat me to it.

Posted by Jason | Report as abusive

re James Perly – I have found the comments here from both sides informative and mature. Then I came to yours. You say you could “rip the ’science’ of this article apart”. Please do so, I would be interested to read it.

However, the fact that you chose invective instead implies that you can’t. I don’t know the answers to these problems, which is why I enjoy reading others’ views, but its still nice to take a break and watch someone make a fool of himself, so please reply.

As for not cool to come out against Global Warming, I think it is happening, has happened several times before(Ice Ages starting and finishing) and mankinds intervention is probably exacerbatring it. But if it is not the sole cause, to what extent can we mitigate it? I don’t know, but if you can answer the first question to the satisfaction of the scientists and laymen such as me, perhaps you should address your second answer to the UN, you clever boy.

Posted by David | Report as abusive

In a previous life, you must have written how absurd it was to believe the earth was round….Give up your GM SUV and your free Chevron gas card…read a little about TESLA(who you say) and then test drive one….
..thank God,most of us desire an end to the status quo and a fresh new start on the road to ending the wasteful and dirty oil business and all those industries related to it…

Posted by ls | Report as abusive

well that was a nice rant from someone who may or may not be getting a kickback from big oil. the fact is there are many ways to fuel a vehicle. go to an eco challenge at least once in your life so you may get a clue.but you offered no kind of persuasive arguement to the fact or contradiction of fuels that may work or may not work..
redesign the engines altogether so that they no longer rely on fossel fuels at all?? the fact that governments are in cahoots with oil industries is no secret. but when the final bell tolls, not even they will be able to run from the mess they have created thru greed. where will you go when you are unable to breathe the air around will die off like the rest of us. and your fortune and posession will not go with you. but you will meet your maker. good luck trying to pay him off.

Posted by mike | Report as abusive


Posted by mike | Report as abusive

As for any environmental choice, the impact of car motorization is much linked to how far we accept to consider the carbon chain/ and efficiency of the technical solutions.

Trully Electrical is appealing (not to say about Silent motors in cities!) but what to think about using Lithium-Ion batteries manufactured from rare earth to come from Perù and hardly dispendable after end of its life-time, loaded from nuclear or coal energy electrical networks (another carbon chain) carrying electricity in copper cables over thousands of kms with the lowest possible overall efficiency…

Then is it combustion motors with improved efficiency (one talks about 2-3 l/km) but still impovering our oil and gaz ressources, and impacting directly on CO² ?

I would bet that the answer does not rely on one single techno, but rather on tuning existing solutions into different types of motorization segmented upon needs : long haul/ urban distance / isolated areas … solutions using hybrid, solar, hydrogen, kinetic

Lets wait and see (not so long to wait though…)

Posted by Gurvan | Report as abusive

I can not believe that Reuters allows such a poor quality article to be published on their site. Hope they make a note of this.

Posted by Chandra | Report as abusive

Al – Oil welling up from the core of the earth…really? Love it. The Soviets fell for the same ludicrous idea (that oil isn’t biologically related) and no one has been able to prove it. You could have made an attempt to say something at least within the realm of plausibility / sanity; such as an increase in cost will make existing, yet difficult to exploit oil more attractive, such as oil shale in Canada, or deep sea exploration, etc. Did really enjoy the laugh I got from the idea that someone who isn’t from antiquity believing that oil comes from the center of the earth.

Posted by Matt G | Report as abusive

I also like the potential of hydrogen fuel cells, but you still have the same power generation problems; production of hydrogen takes a lot of energy.

Wrt photoelectric cells; the power needed fuel a car is considerable, there is simply not enough energy coming from the sun no matter how efficient the cells, to make much difference other than a small top-up to the battery.

Hybrid do little more than give you a lttle better fuel economy and are not really a long term answer. Btw – Toyota Prius has the same long term effect on the environment as a Land Rover Dicovery – batteries are made of nasty stuff.

Posted by Neil Taylor | Report as abusive

Btw – a previous post asked about efficiency of power stations… I believe it something like 10% (i.e. if burn a piece of coal at the power station you only get about 10% of that by the time you have losses through the generators and pumped it through power lines to your power outlet). So, unless the power generation problems are solved, it is not worth talking about improved battery technology.

Posted by Neil | Report as abusive


The same guy who posited that the oil comes from the fusion process of the planet’s core was also the same person who first posited the now accepted theory that the core IS a fission reactor, way back in the ’70′s. It was the only way, he found, to explain the volcanic activity on our planet since it is not subject to the gravitational distortion from the sun, which is what fuels the volcanic activity on some of Jupiter’s moons. Oh, and that scientist was laughed at about that theory, too. You may laugh, but that’s because you believe you understand how the world works beneath the crust, when you don’t have a clue any better than I do. While I am undecided on believing the theory, I do find it to be as valid as any other. Afterall, all the carbon in the universe was created by the trillions of stars in a non-organic process.

Posted by al | Report as abusive

To my dear friend David, I will point out some of the grosser inaccuracies since it is late and I am tired:
Point 1: Overall implication that what we do with car technology is the only impact on the price of oil. Since auto and truck transportation accounts for only about 40% of all petrochemical consumption, the entire premise of the article (as well as the preceding report) is flawed.
Point 2: Batteries are the roadblock, there is no technological breakthrough in sight.
I just googled the term ‘fast charging battery’ and this article was the first result:

‘MIT develops new fast-charging battery technology ideal for automobiles’.

Venture Capitalists have been piling into the green tech industry because they say that the science is so poorly developed, that they have a very good shot at actually patenting a real breakthrough.
Point 3: Rare earth materials shortages. The WORLDS LARGEST KNOWN RARE EARTH ELEMENTS MINE (sorry) – is in California!!! Many other large mines in Canada and Australia have been laying fallow because China has swamped the world with cheap rare earth materials. Prices will rise, these mines will open, and then prices will stabilize, and maybe even drop again. This is basic economics.
Point 4: “Fuel must be burned to generate power”. Here it is not clear if the author is referring to a hybrid engine burning the fuel, or of a power plant creating the fuel. If he is referring to a hybrid engine, I don’t understand how one can say that they are less efficient than gasoline powered cars when they get much better mileage. And if we are talking about power generation, that is another whole kettle of fish, but I for one am all for generating the power outside of the city for two huge reasons:
1) a lot of that power is generated cleanly (or cleaner than by burning gas)
2) at least that pollution isn’t being spewed at ground level where I am standing breathing it

Lastly, the prediction that the electric car will be done by 2030? I guess that is a little joke given the authors anger over the Deutsche Bank report. I have to agree that that report sounds like a bunch of crap, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Peak oil and clean energy are huge problems with hundreds of facets, and both the report and this article make light of (and vastly oversimplify) a significant situation.

Posted by James Perly | Report as abusive

why is no one trying to fit an alternator on the electric cars to improve their range

Posted by david mcharg | Report as abusive

The electric car is waste time. Fact.

The car itself produces no emissions or harmful gases but when that battery runs out of energy it needs to recharge. Where does it recharge from? The mains supply, which goes directly to power stations: which pollute. It does not matter what type of power station it is it will pollute.

Sustainable energy sources such as wave energy pollute rivers and seas, solar energy is inefficient(many solar panels needed to output alot of electricity), wind energy is unreliable. Nuclear energy produces harmful nuclear waste. The point of the electric car is reduce carbon emmisions and other harmful gases being released into the atmosphere but this is not being achieved.

Also there is a problem concerning noise. Blind people cannot hear the cars. Also all motoring events would become silent and this removes some enjoyment out of the sport. Indeed people enjoy the sounds of cars. Electric cars remove this enjoyment.

In conclusion electric cars are pointless.

Posted by Damien | Report as abusive

I heartily agree with this article. The electric car is at best a gimmick. A battery that will give reasonable range, reasonable performance, us not unduly affected by temperature, is affordable and doesn’t rely on the most exotic of exotic materials is a chimera..a hipogryph…a fantasy that science simply cannot conjure up!

The truly terrible thing is that the promise of this impossible electric car is being used to restructure the energy sector of the economy. The new so-called GREEN ENERGY will be subject to pork-barrel politics, will owe it’s very existence to the politicians who force it into existence and will PAY back that favor comes election time. It is a swindle and the electric car is being held out as appealing eye-candy for what will go down in history as one of the greatest political manipulations, the direst economic disaster in the history of the US.

Michael S. Copley

Posted by Michael S. Copley | Report as abusive

I live in BC Canada and our energy comes from HYDRO. So yeah I can plug in my electric car instead of burning oil. I’m sure you can bash hydro but you can go back to riding a donkey if your going to attack all forms of energy. The problem is humanity is short sighted and greedy. Me first, environment second. This swing is coming back around to smash us in the face. The monkey race learns, bad monkey, forced to change or die we will. We have a small chance of change. India, China and all the 3rd world countries hold the future. If they want the same standards as the US had, its over. Billions of people cannot have 1st world lifestyles. The 1st world must lead the charge. Downsize, recycle, public transit and human transit (cycling etc), organic gardening IN the cities, end of the consumer cycle creating billions of tons of garbage a day, wind/solar power for every home and this can be panels which put energy back into the grid, or simply heating water etc. geothermal green structures which recycle and reuse. While the world still uses “disposable” were failing. How much paper, plastic, energy, garbage, pollution is used for packaging / single use? How many species are being decimated for senseless profit (shark fin soup). Until the entire human species is educated to see/respect/understand these issues and CHANGE were not going to make it. Crimes against the future of the Earth are under way, who’s going to stop it? We will change when life is so unbearably hard we are forced to, and by then it may be too late. I hope not, and anyone who’s trying gives us a chance. Maybe electric cars with batteries are not the golden goose, but its a huge step in the right direction. Awareness, education, action. Keep trying new stuff. Doing the same thing, in the same old engines with the same old energy sources = FAIL. So try to be part of the solution, walk to work, stop buying junk you don’t need etc. and support new ideas.

[...] Commentaries » Blog Archive » The electric car is a technological … [...]

HYdrogen fuel cells also pollute. The hydrogen burns with oxygen and forms water right? The draw back is that in the production of hydrogen, carbon dioxide is produced. This is a green house gas which still pollutes.

Posted by Damien | Report as abusive

Witamy zbierają się czarne chmury nad samochodami elektrycznymi wielu widzi powolny koniec tych samochodów, brak przełomu w zasięgu tych samochodów, wysokie wydatki na systemy, które by zapewniły szybkie ładowanie tych samochodów w miastach drogie baterie litowe oddalają przyszłość tych samochodów wiele firm samochodowych prowadzi zimne kalkulacje czy samochody elektryczne będą wstanie pokonać samochody benzynowe albo zbliżyć się do zasięgu czy czasu ładowania swych baterii. Wiele firm sprawdza, co do dzisiaj zastało zrobione na świecie tym kierunku. Wielu jeszcze firm samochodowych nie składa broni żeby zmienić pogarszającą się sytuację samochodów elektrycznych z dnia na dzień, czy świat musi się tym pogodzić, czy nie jesteśmy wstanie zobaczyć błysku silniejszego od ropy czy gazu skończyć dominacją nad światem, czy ludzie są bezsilni pomóc polepszeniu się naszego klimatu, czekając na ostatnią krople ropy za jakom cenę. Świat jest jeszcze podzielony na tych, co chcą postępu i na tych, co chcą jeszcze utrzymać stary porządek jak długo się da. A teraz nasze zdanie nie wygląda tak żle tym zasięgiem do samochodów elektrycznych brakuje tyko trzy miesiące do wyjaśnienia sobie czy świat pójdzie za naszą wizją napędu jakże inną jak reszta świata czy wszyscy razem z klimatem będziemy czekać do końca czarnych dni ropy i naszego klimatu, nowe źródła energetyczne wielu dostanie szoku widząc samochody elektryczne, które będą same wytwarzać swą energię do zasilania a zasięg ich będzie niesamowity,przejedziesz Amerykę jednego końca na drugi nie tankując nie ładując swój samochód,czy 20 Kw będzie grzało twój dom do woli rzucamy rękawicę ciekaw jesteśmy, kto pierwszy podniesie wezwani, na koniec to Jest kierunek badan człowieka, który jest znany w światowej Fizyce

Welcome to the dark clouds gather over the electric car many see the slow end of the car, the lack of a breakthrough in the range of these vehicles, the high spending on systems that would ensure fast loading of those cars in the cities of expensive lithium batteries away the future of these cars many car companies by cold calculation, or electric cars will be able to beat cars, gasoline, or closer to the time scale or charging its battery. Many companies verify that the zastało done today in the world that direction. Many car companies have not made weapons to change the deteriorating situation of electric cars by the day, whether the world has to accept it or not we are able to see the flash stronger than oil or gas to end the domination of the world, whether people are powerless to help improve our climate change, waiting for the last drops of oil for the price as I am. The world is still divided into those who want progress and those who still want to maintain the old order as long as possible. And now, our opinion does not look so bad that the reach of the electric car is missing Tyko three months to clarify whether the world will follow our vision of how a different drive like the rest of the world and together with the climate we will wait until the end of the black days of our oil and climate change, new sources of Energy gets shocked to see many electric cars, which will themselves generate their energy to power and their reach will be amazing, you pass one end of America to another are not filling up your car is not loading, or 20 KW will be warmed your house at will throw the gauntlet we wonder who called the first raise, at the end of this line of research is a man who is known in Physics World

I totally agree with this article. We will be running cars on water (yes, good old H2O) long before the battery technology is a real contender.

Posted by Matthew | Report as abusive