However a car is fuelled; petroleum, coal electricity, mono crop ethanol/biodiesel, renewable electricty it is still an incredibly inefficient mode of transport. At best 2-3% of the energy consumed goes into actually moving the person and the rest is spent moving metal and creating heat. In the near future we won't be able to afford to waste energy so profligately - it will be needed for food production.

I believe that cars used for primary personal transport is a dead concept. Settlement needs to contract and folks need to get back to walking and cycling.

This is probably a disturbingly low tech solution for most folks but we will need to mostly abandon cars to cope with what is coming (already here?). The reality is there will not be a technological solution.

The motto for the future is "Contract and Conserve". Flame on.

So perhaps the Auto is done, but it won't be a Grand Enlightenment, it'll be us being finally outdone by our greed and the immutable fact of the Law of Conservation.

Here's a funny thought. A world where the "family car" is a pedal driven golf cart (Flintstones?)where Mom and Dad literally "have the power."

If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got. - Yogi Berra

The solution must be better mass transportation and more efficient transportation.  Not pedal driven golf carts but efficient lightweight personal vehicles powered by some kind of clean renewable energy.

Boyscientist and others who worship technology and believe humans are on the right path have no sense of ecology or wildlife biology.  Technology IS the problem -- well, at least one of them -- and will not solve anything.  Certain technologies are clearly more harmful than others, but they all cause significant ecological harms.

Ecologically, having a tiny efficient highway vehicle is better than having a horse or two. I bet, that if people gather a true ecological caring for the planet, instead of a 'my big car is faster than your small car' attitude, then we will cultivate our own physical salvation.  

Your future is not determined by your past

So with conservation, aided by a renewable smart grid, even with a plugin hybrid you end up using around 30% of your present electric power.

With this lower power demand, distributed solar, wind, and biogas from waste would handle the load.

Water conservation has enormous possibilities too.  Composting toilets, air pressure/water spray dish, clothes, and people washing, and drain water recycling to be used in drip irrigation.  Could save 80% of water use.

I agree on cars though, ultra light hypercars and plugin bikes are the answer.  Safe plugin bikes with three wheels and clear plastic bubble wall crash/weather protection.   And lots more bike trails and lanes.

Under 1000 pound plugin hybrid hypercars made from carbon fiber will sip gas only after the plugin battery range is exhausted, 100 miles would be easy to attain in these much more efficient cars.  

This all might seem like techno majic, but all these systems already exist.  Just at a one off experimental stage for some, like the plugin hypercar, and at higher prices due to lack of mass production for many others.  Like the plugin bike.

Water gulping coal and nuclear power plants are obsolete and ought to be phased out over the next decade.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

You've got to be kidding!  I won't even waste time rebutting this ridiculous garbage until you provide the facts that support your assertion.

It good that you didn't waste time rebutting my statement, because the horses would have rebutted you with their waste.    

Your future is not determined by your past

"...but almost no water consumption for cooling"

There is nothing sustainable or renewable about killing huge sections of wilderness, and sucking all the groundwater out of the deserts, both of which have devastating ripple effects on other ecosystems!!  Please do not believe the total lies you are being told about massive solar farms - we need ALL OUR RESOURCES to flow into better energy storage, better conservation tech, and better renewable generation ONLY on previously developed land, using ONLY existing transmission corridors.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

Use the focused solar process heat for silicon refining and fabrication, for instance, a high heat energy intensive process that is in short supply and making solar PV artificially expensive.  Glass and metal recycling and fabrication can also use solar furnace power.

Then use the waste heat, trapped in the cooling products, to keep on generating electric power long after dark.  A closed cycle turbine using refrigerant like ammonia won't need water, especially if ground heat exchange is used to cool the turbine cycle.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

How about offshore floating wind/wave power platforms powering shipyards?  Shipyards that build floating wind/wave power platforms even?

Distributed renewable power is for factories, malls, stadiums, the pentagon...  power it up from the smallest installation, a campground composting toilet with a solar nightlight..  all the way up to the biggest mall in america.  Green power it all.

The Mall of America uses no heat even in Minnesota Winters.  It stores the heat from big greenhouse windows and people walking through daily, all night long.  So why isn't it supplying more than it's own electricity use with solar PV on that huge roof?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

You are also correct that trying to use horses instead of cars in our grossly overpopulated and highly unnatural urban environments would not work.  But the problem with your statement, "[e]cologically, having a tiny efficient highway vehicle is better than having a horse or two," is that a human made machine is never ecologically "better" than a natural animal.  Horses were native to North America at some point and have not been shown to cause any ecological harm whatsoever.  Having too many horses in one place, just as having too many humans there, is of course harmful, but that's a result of too many people or of people using too many horses.  A car, regardless how small and fuel efficient, causes massive ecological destruction just to build (water consumption, mining, petroleum, etc.), and causes more destruction due to the requisite roads (horses don't even need trails, though having them makes traveling easier).

It's the machines-are-better-than-nature aspect of your post that I strongly object to and the absurdity of saying that ANY type of car could be better than a horse.  It's just plain false.  What the Earth needs is for humans to greatly reduce their population and consumption, including complete cessation of consumption of things needed to produce cars.  At that point, it can be clearly seen that horses are a far superior choice over any type of car.

What the Earth needs is for humans to greatly reduce their population and consumption, including complete cessation of consumption of things needed to produce cars.  At that point, it can be clearly seen that horses are a far superior choice over any type of car.

Greatly reducing the human population?
Yeah, thats never going to happen.

Unless of course it's through something as rosy as Nuclear or Biological Warfare.

What you're talking about seems more about ideology rather than physics based benchmarks.

-David Ahlport

If my 42 to 75 MPG vehicles that I drove for 28 years, my present espousal for renewable energy sources & tiny electric cars & bikes, & the child I never had, do not qualify me for your world vision of severe population reduction & Vows of Poverty...then I am happy you cannot hammer the planet Earth into your dream.    

Your future is not determined by your past

Let them be your guide to the future horseless carriage haters.  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin