Great post.  I think the most promising thing here is CHP/cogeneration, which estimates say could slash greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in the U.S.  That's as much as if we took every car off the road.  

I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development, whose president, Sean Casten, blogs here.  But I thought I'd say thanks for the good post.

Thanks for all the work.  I find that I want to comment on much of it, but this forum format doesn't lend itself to that sort of discussion.

In general I find myself thinking that while the severe economic downturn that we are now in is a terrible thing and the high price of petroleum (soon to return to the scene) is an awful thing, these two events could not have hit us at a better time.

We've got the really big, bad thing looming in our future.  Global climate change stands to be this centuries Black Plague. Times ten.

People are paying attention and ready to head in a new direction.  Making major changes should be a lot easier than it would have been a year or two back....

Bob Wallace said the people were paying attention.  I am sorry but that does not seem in include many of my neighbors.  What I do see is Chevron greenwash and other misappropriation of the terminology of the debate.  The only thing that the neighbors complain about is the high cost to fill the tanks of their SUV's and the fact that the illegals are taking all of those good American Jobs. I still see economic success for the US being dependent on how much stuff we accumulate.

I also see people going from blog to blog, making the same comments and causing it to look like there are a lot more of us that there really is.

Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US

> Just to try a back-of-the-envelope calculation on how much an electric high-speed rail system would cost:  We had discussions about some of this before, but it seems that the California High-speed rail system will cost about 40 billion dollars for 800 miles, so figure $50 million per mile.  Now, according to Wikipedia, there are 46,000 miles in the Interstate Highway System.  Let's figure we would have a 40,000 mile high-speed rail system, which I would be thrilled to hear would be complete overkill.  So that's $2 trillion over, say, 20 years, and I'm bad with the interest rate math, but the California system will be profitable, allegedly, so an Interstate High-speed rail system could pay most of that money back.

Most of the expenditures on rail are upgrading existing lines, not installing new ones. Also we are not talking about super high speeds. 100 mph is plenty for freight.  If you follow the link you will see that there are some new lines, but not a whole lot. You still use highways for the first and last miles, which means rail does not have to go everywhere.  That is why 85% of long haul trucking ends up being shifted to rail, you still end up with 15% of long distance freight being by truck and all or most short haul trucking.

> Could you put some of the figures into "the" spreadsheet?  What I mean are the figures for each of the major areas, for expenditure -- is that what adds up to 1.7 trillion per yeara? -- and then show the payback, and how that brings the figure down into the 200 to 400 billion dollar range

The costs tab shows the costs. The payback tab shows the paybacks. The Scenarios tab  combines costs and payback to show payback with various assumptions on  efficiency investment, sucesss of that investment, and degree of technical improvement.

Price of Trac is now up 23,000. Does not affect my basic argument.

We could follow Amory Lovins' suggestion and have the government purchase the initial output both for federal fleets and for leases. Purchasing large numbers of electric vehicles would not only help lower their costs in general, but it also could help break the chicken-egg deadlock that keeps electric-car-quality battery prices high.

Great job Gar!  Only one quibble, I think it would be wise to specify plugin hybrid hypercars, the Lovins carbon fiber body/frame streamlined SUV.  Pure electric cars won't be ready until battery technology undergoes serious advances in research and mass production.

Even a 1 hour charge time every 150 miles, abot the best that can be acheived with 20k dolars worth of nano-tech lithium is dies not a practical vehicle make.  And it's far too expensive.  

A practical plugin hybrid could have as low as a 25 mile range with as long as a 6 hour charge. That's a cheap, immediately available, already mass produced battery, practical in a hypercar anyway, Since the lighter weight vehicle uses much less power, a third of the GM "Volt".

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

take your plans

and identify the states where the spending would occur, when

re-jigger your priorities to target votes

identify waves of programs (keeping need for votes firmly in mind)

identify constituencies to support first wave

the common good is not sufficient; you must target the common good of elected officials in a position to block the common good

I was talking about an entirely new passenger high-speed rail system, sorry for the confusion.  At 1.6 trillion over 20 years, that's not so bad for what we would get, and it would solve the airplane problem and much of the automobile problem.

I'm not sure how to calculate what a full-scale transit system, that took advantage of what density exists now, would cost, and I don't know if anyone has calculated that, city-by-city, which is a shame.

As for electric cars, we shall see, and like so much else about this climate mess, I hope I'm wrong.  It's just that, if you check out neighborhood electric vehicles, there are tens of thousands of GEMcars and REVAs around the world, they are here now (and strangely enough, Chrysler used to own GEM, maybe they still do).

As for density, that would actually have to go hand-in-hand with more transit (the sort of thing Ryan Avent has demonstrated so well), transit tends to increase density.  But I would agree that it's possible we'll have to do most climate change mitigation without anything close to an ideal density (although Europe and Japan, among developed countries, are in much better shape than we are in this regard).

Here is the thing. Without a massive increase in density, 1.6 trillion in passenger rail spending might not buy us more than 500 billion. We can do freight much more quickly than passenger.

>Great job Gar!  Only one quibble, I think it would be wise to specify plugin hybrid hypercars, the Lovins carbon fiber body/frame streamlined SUV.  Pure electric cars won't be ready until battery technology undergoes serious advances in research and mass production.

>Even a 1 hour charge time every 150 miles, abot the best that can be acheived with 20k dolars worth of nano-tech lithium is dies not a practical vehicle make.  And it's far too expensive.

There is huge potential market for pure electrics  with a 100+ range and a six (not one) hour charging time.   And a large percentage of cars in government fleets are used in ways that such would be suitable.  So why concentrate on pure electrics? Cause PHEVs are also expensive. A massive increase in the number of electric cars would put enough components into mass production that are now craft items to drive down the price of making PHEVs by private companies. A massive increase in the number of PHEVs would in turn drive bringing down the price of components for electric cars.    It is a virtuous cycle that could best be jump stared by ordering HyperCar electrics, not PHEVs. One exception: retrofitting existing cars into PHEVS.

I suspect we could easily place  50,000 pure electric cars per year just in government fleets with a decent 20 year payback.  That is a tiny, tiny fraction of the  total auto fleet, but boy would that jump start the cycle, bring down costs, and advance the technology.  And we need to have the smart grid in place before too much of the fleet is electrified in any case if all those car batteries are to stabilize rather than destabilize the grid. (Mind you given that most cars are charged at night, not that fast. But "charged at night" often equals "charged with coal", so the sooner we get a smart grid, and substantial renewable renewable electricity, the better.)

I'm thinking a four level system.

Airplanes for people who really do need to get long distances in a reasonable amount of time.  I wouldn't want to travel NY to SF on high speed rail if I was traveling for business or a short holiday.  And there are oceans...

High speed (electric) rail for less long travel.  Europe has generated some good data about how far people choose to ride the rail and past that point switch to a plane.  SF/Sacramento to LA seems to be a good high speed max distance.  Being able to board/exit city-center vs. driving to the airport makes up for slower transit time up to a point.

Local light rail systems.  When I look at a US map I see that many cities, from Kansas City to Nashville, to ...  have closely placed smaller cities/towns.  These would seem to be excellent places to place our first light (electric) rail.  

Expand the tracks outward over time and connect closer cities with ~100 mph light rail eventually.    This way we could build a fast/light rail system of hubs and spokes with a few more expensive fast rail routes moving people longer distances.

At some point there needs to be standardization of track size, voltage, etc. so that manufacturers can reach an economy of scale by selling their product to any city that has light rail.

BEVs and PHEVs along with battery/hybrid buses for local transport.  There is always going to be a desire for personal transportation.  People just buy too many groceries, have too much "small children" stuff, have older family members, etc. to make public transportation a joy.  The idea of everyone riding public transportation won't fly if people can afford an alternative.

And fleets of 'reserve by cell-phone/activate by card swipe' BEVs parked at rail terminals.  Some people need/want to be independent once they reach their destination.  I'd be more likely to take rapid rail to LA if I knew that I had a charged BEV waiting for my arrival.  Otherwise I might choose to drive.  And if all I'm going to do is drive around a city at moderate speeds then a very small vehicle would be an acceptable option.

Bob, I think your four level vision is right on.

CE1907:

>re-jigger your priorities to target votes

I'll give you some data, and you can produce the spreadsheet. About half the cost is deployment of technology. Efficiency technology has to be deployed where the energy is consumed. Freight rail has to be put where freight moves. Renewable energy has to be deployed where the sun shines and the wind blows.    But about half is manufacturing - wind turbines and towers, solar panels and cells, steam engines, insulation and efficiency equipment for the home, electric cars, rail cars, locomotives, steel and aluminum, and glass and plastic.  So you have 850 billion a year (mostly private, but steered by public investment) that you can deploy pretty much where you want it. Yeah there are still physical constraints, but you are also dealing with a variety of technologies, and money is fungible. With appropriate juggling you can spend that 850 billion annually where you want.

So you do the spreadsheet. We have 850 billion a year. So long as you don't get ridiculous like putting half of it in one state or something, you can deploy it where you want. Why don't you do the political calculations.

One other thing. In most areas we are increasing not only net but gross employment. That is we are for the most part not displacing workers. We are mostly converting job categories with no need to eliminate them. (Workers who made cars can make electric cars, PHEVS and trains, and so on.) But there is one important exception. Trucking. We are going to drastically decrease trucking and do so quickly. While we will increase freight rail, freight rail has much greater labor productivity per ton mile than trucking. Truck manufacturing can be converted to other other manufacturing, but long Haul Truck Drivers won't all be able to do new, similar jobs. Here the the choices I can think of:

There are new jobs that have some transfer of skills. We are going to need a lot more drivers for passenger rail and buses. Not exactly the same skill set, but a truck driver should be able to become a train or bus driver more easily than your average bear.

Jobs that have no relation to trucking - manufacturing,  installation of efficiency technologies, work in wind and solar farms.

You are the one who claims to be a political realist. We have a large net increase in jobs, so it is economically solvable. The question is how to make it politically solvable?   Again, with most of the economy we pay people do stuff, and to make stuff very similar to what they do and make now.  But long haul truck drivers will mostly have to something other than drive trucks. So what are the politics of dealing with that?  What do we offer to Teamsters? What do we offer independent long-haul owner operators?

It might be more about not having new drivers enter the occupation than about moving existing drivers out of their seats.  (And people are constantly dying out of the upper end.)

Seems to me that independent owner/drivers are doing all that well these days.  Even before fuel prices went through the roof.  I'm not sure that many people really would choose to be a long haul driver if they had a 'stay at home' job option.

The future we're discussing will have plenty of short haul driving jobs.  Stuff will move in containers from origin to shuttle truck to train to shuttle truck to destination.  Current drivers can move to the shuttle seats and sleep at home at night.

There will always be some places that need to be supplied by medium-long trucking.  Here in Humboldt County we've lost our rail connections to the outside due to disuse and landslides.  I'm not sure there would ever be adequate reason to restore them now that the days of 'big lumber' are gone.

Current trucking firms will be able to convert from long to short haul companies during the transition.  Big tractors will likely be downsized to smaller, more economic, more maneuverable rigs over time.  

Union shops can stay union shops.  (I'm not sure that unions have much to do with independents.)

Watching what has happened in the US car manufacturing business, I think unions have realized that they have to be flexible to survive in these early days of globalization.  I'm not sure unions will fight the changes to any real extent.  

You talk of "$850 billion".

Is that government dollars only?  If so, I think you should increase the amount or decrease the governmental amount to reflect the amount of private money that will flood in as new enterprises prove to be profitable.

Look at what is happening in wind and geothermal. Took government money to get them off the ground.  Still needing some public money as they grow.  But they will soon reach a stage where they self-support and attract adequate private money to continue.

Some few months ago the wind industry said that they needed support for "another two years" and after that the infrastructure would be built up to a level where support wouldn't really be needed.

(That said, I think we would be well served by continuing to sweeten the wind industry in order to keep new installation moving as rapidly as possible.)

No 850 billion is not government dollars only - mostly private. 850 billion is half the 1.7 trillion total annual investment. But of that 1.7 trillion is private. Basically we are looking at 265 billion annually in direct investment in things like insulation where it is really possible manage public investment properly, and another investment starting at ten or twenty billion and growing to 200 billion in renewable incentives.  But that much public investment gives us plenty of room to steer private investment in a vary broad sense, for instance in helping to determine where factories are located.   So again we are talking 265 billion in public investment, plus 1.9 cents per kWh renewable incentive that will grow as more of our electricity becomes renewable.  All the rest is private.

Check out Ryan Avent's most recent post about high-speed rail.  It is not transit, or even density, it's about getting between cities.  What happens if oil hits $200 per barrel and more?  Planes will not be practical -- maybe not even for most transcontinental, only over oceans (at great expense).  Transit is a whole different ball game, with different considerations.

By the way, I was leafing through "suburban nation' and they said that highways now cost about $30 million per mile, so high-speed rail is not much more expensive.

ce1907, the question is to create an infrastructure-industrial complex that has the same support, or similar, to the military-industrial complex.  If everyone thinks that they're going to get their districts big bucks, they won't car if it's defense or infrastructure, as long as they get it.  The question is how to put an infrastructure-industrial complex together.

We can keep oil from going to (or staying at) that sort of level if we move quickly enough to personal vehicles like the Chevy Volt or BYD's F6DM.  

The F6DM is a Chinese PHEV that goes on sale week after next and should be coming to the US in the next 12-24 months.  It has a 60 mile range on batteries alone.  The Volt has a 40 (perhaps more) battery only range.

Based on research by GM and Toyota a 40 mile range would cover ~80% of American driving.  Probably even a higher percentage in Europe or Asia.

We do about 50% of our driving in cars that are five years or less old.  It wouldn't take many years to do the same amount of driving with far less oil.  

(A great place to spend some public money. Underwrite prices or offer very low rate loans to get people into these cars fast.  Start buying lots for governmental use. Build a market so that economies of scale bring down the price.)

That would mean a drastic cut in petroleum demand.  

And you can see what happens when demand is cut below supply by comparing pump prices today to prices of a couple months ago.

Additionally, when oil goes above $100 per barrel it creates an economic entry point for biofuels.  

Airlines (and the USAF) are already making test flights with biofuels and biofuel blends.  There is some tipping point at which we will start to grow our flight fuel rather than buying it from other countries.

It's 40k, 160 hp, steel body/frame design is not worthy of government purchase.

Back to the drawing board.  As with the jeep design in the WW2 era, the government needs to specify, weight, range, mileage and so forth, then order a million units a year from the auto makers.  It better be under 20k, maybe 18k for government vehicle fleet use.

A world beating plugin hybrid drivetrain/battery/backup generator power system inside and the usual decoration each auto maker prefers on the outside.  This mass production would drop prices for consumers.

To stabilize oil prices, a year after year reduction in demand would do it best.  Say a 3 to 5% reduction, through replacement of heating oil with ground source heating, freight rail replacing trucks, mass transit, then mass production of plugin hybrids in a few years.

Small steps, even tire inflation to start with or just driving less and carpooling more as is happening now can suffice for a tear or two of the target goal.  We need a leader to encourage that reduction campaign, ask for collecvtive sacrifice.

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

"It's 40k, 160 hp, steel body/frame design is not worthy of government purchase."

The Volt is a bit pricey.  From what I understand some of that price is due to battery cost which would drop with larger scale manufacturing.  

Economy of scale thing.

That's exactly why it would help if the government would buy a bunch for their fleet.  It might be nice if someone were to design your ideal car for government service, but that vehicle would be years in the making.  Some of us think that we need to get moving quickly away from fossil fuels, even if we "waste" a few dollars now.

Not sinking beneath the rising ocean would be a nice return on our dollars....

I guess I'm going to say this all backwards. But the way I envision this happening is that the EPA would regulate the primary industries first and then expend the scope of rules into the commercial sector. The residential and consumer focus would be last.

Of course, creating the "paradigm shift" as Thomas Kuhn would begin in the home, the store, and the car. I think some voluntarism would be excellent here, as it is starting today. But I hate to enforce draconian laws on the people until we get the major industries and commercial interests regulated FIRST.

I have a reason for saying this. Who opposes global warming strategies the most? Who does the "green-washing"? Sorry for the unnecessary rhetorical questions but such a targeted enforcement strategy is essential, and I don't see why bazillions of public money should be spent on those investments - although I know we will pay higher bills no matter what the pay-backs might be.

After going through the big stuff and working through things commercial, then I would focus on changing consumer habits. This is a big deal because you still have about 30 percent of the people who think global warming is a crock. But should that cost the government money, other than maybe some incentives, grants, or tax breaks? I don't think so.

So then Gar asks, "how much money should we spend on greening America?"  My answer is: nothing and everything.

OK, humor aside, the US does run a highway system, has jurisdiction over interstate rail, and also runs the waterways (a major oversight Gar, since barging is 2-5 times more efficient than rail is).

But that's all the command side of the equation: making mandates or paying for public works that make our nation greener or hopefully more sustainable - I like the sustainable part myself too.

The response side of the equation is bound to he enormous and I'd just like to remind Grist readers of that. There could be extreme drought in the Southwest, massive wildfires, extreme coastal retreat and perhaps more hurricanes, and even horrendous cold and snowy conditions up north, simply due to the "freaky weather syndrome" caused by global warming. Sorry for the run-on sentence but that seems to be almost a given. Lord knows, we may have changes the climate so much that earthquakes could happen as well, especially as we draw down the water tables and start injecting more pooh into the ground.

Aye, perhaps we need a rainy day fund reserve just for global-warming related disasters (as opposed to military or political ones). This would be a major changing in thinking, something that would be fitting if you've ever read Thomas Kuhn about paradigm shifts.  

One the whole, I liked the rather simple, "no new technology" approach but would simply ask for a mare targeted and comprehensive look at things. Thanks Gar you made me think ... I have a few OK ideas here maybe and sorry to write so long.  -sam

Onward through the fog

I don't disagree with you, but I think we have to be realistic about where the most rapid success can be made.

Rail takes a long time to build.  I doubt that we could build significant light rail in cities in the next ten years.  High speed rail in California  is projected for a 2035 completion.

In five years we could make a large dent in our petroleum consumption if we had affordable PHEVs.

We could make a major dent in ten.  We might have 50% of our cars using only 20% of the fuel of the other 50%.  And since newer cars are used for a higher percentage of driving overall fuel savings could be under 40%.

There's another seeming advantage to PHEVs.  At the moment we're building a lot of wind generation and will continue to do so as wind is the least expensive non-fossil fuel method to harvest energy.

We will build generation to provide for peak hour consumption.  That means that we will overbuild for nighttime demand.  And winds tend to blow stronger at night.  

Electric cars have the unique characteristic of running on stored energy.  We can charge them up at night when power is in low demand.  

Daytime trains are going to run on power generated during the day which means we have to create more sources to feed them.  (Or come up with some good, affordable storage systems.)

The quick charge high current 15 minute charge stations will be hard to build out, meanwhile you are stuck towing your BEV to power if you run out.

Backup power that uses readily available motor fuel is more practical for the near future.  Maybe fuel cells that use regular will be available soon, boosting mileage 4 times.

One third the batteries, weight, amd high cost, and an inexpensive backup generator, beats fullelectric for now.  Only movie stars can afford a tow when they run out of battery power.

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

Not really hard to build out.

We already have them in many warehouses where they are used to recharge forklifts.

These would be basically 'unload from the truck, bolt down, hook up the feed, and start service' units.  

Fast food restaurants would be very glad to host them, I would imagine....

---

As for running out on the road - active GPS tracking, battery monitoring, station location waypoints.  The only reason to run out would be if you ignored the message to "take exit 107 and turn left under the highway to Arby's".  

And then ignored the message "Hey Dummy!  Do not fail to take exit 108 coming up on your right in one minute and then return to exit 107.  45 seconds, 30 seconds, ...".

If you did run out then AAA can bring you a limpet battery pack that will take you to the next station.  Just like they bring you gas when you dummy out.  

Or they can drag you on to the back of their rescue truck....

They charge slowly, as they use standard deep cycle lead/acid batteries.  A 15 minute charge for a lithium ion battery will take something different, a very high current system.

I doubt they have been developed yet, surely they have never been mass produced.  With pure electric cars they would need to be as widely spread as gas pumps.  That's a tall infrastructure order.

Sophisticated computerized GPS warning systems would still include the human element to respond appropriately.  This whole new pure electric recharge system needs work, lots of resting and then lots of capital.  It's a system that maybe 10 or more years away.

Plugin hybrid technology is ready right now, and fuels with the conventional gas pump, and with a cord to plug in at home and some slow charging plugs at work, school, or shopping centers that works with an internet account to meter the recharge power could be ready sooner to make the system practical over the next few years.

This is a step by step transition to a new energy economy.  It won't happen overnight.  Efficiency gains first, carpooling, mass transit, biking, tire inflation, tuneups, higher mileage conventional cars and hybrids could get the oil/GHG reduction in the first couple of years, giving time for plugin hybrids to go into mass production.

Pure electrics, battery exchange taxis, delivery trucks, and buses next.  then maybe in 5 to 10 years pure electric, quick charge technolopgy will be ready for mass production.  It depends mainly on battery/recharge system  R&D.

If politicians and industry can be kept in line on this transition and not be allowed to falter back into excuses to continue gas guzzling, this should start to revive the economy.  If a signifigant portion of the new energy economy devices can be manufactured here in the US that is.

So far that isn't happening because of foot dragging and diversion.  Will we the people keep them on track?  If we don't most of US can say goodbye to living wages and prosperity.

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

Quick charge not really  needed. Most cars spend more time parked than on the road. And we all have to sleep sometime. More than half of car owners have garages, car-ports or fixed parking spaces with electric outlets. That infrastructure is place. Put in renewable energy with storage so that if we start using it those cars don't end up charged by baseline coal. As the number of electric cars grows, require charging at work.

In terms of barges: yes they are more efficient than rail. But it will take a lot of dredging just to keep from losing capacity, especially as drought and flooding increases. I did put barges in my book. But I decided that shifting freight to barges does not have that great a potential. There is one exception, but it is positive unintended side effect of doing the rest. A lot of both freight train, and barge capacity is used to transport coal. As we phase out coal, that makes room for more freight of other kinds. Since barge is a very slow form of transport, getting rid of coal probably is all the increase in capacity we will need.

The urge for personal greed, the golden parachute philosophy is the problem.  Executives have got theirs no matter if their corporation goes chapter 11.

New leaders who wnat to revive corporations are the answer.  Wanting your business to make a sustainable profit can actually include ethical eco-goals.

Is capitalism inherently evil?  No, not when it is carefully regulated.  But what we have in the mega-multinationals is not capitalism, it is corporatism.  A system whereby corporate entities aim to use government to acheive and maintain monopoly control over the global economy.  That's not innovative, risk/reward capitalism.

It's global corporate feudalsim, under which the corporate class operates like a monarchy.  Thus bonnie prince duuhbya was appointed to power, reared for incompetence and prideful ignorance.  We see how that is working out.

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

Just read Gus Speth's "Bridge to the end of the world" and Gar Alperovtitz' "America beyond capitalism", both interesting attempts to define a different kind of political economy where greed could be...well, maybe the right word is "superseded" by community (especially for Alperovitz).  They both bring up workplace democracy as well, both as an extension of democracy and a way to relocalize power and participation.

And in an attempt to stay on this thread, Bob Wallace it would be great if all that is required for cars is to change the innards and the stations.  But we've had train technology for decades -- even the high-speed kind.  Yes, it takes a while to build trains -- interestingly, an argument made by Republicans as to why building trains wouldn't help with the recession/Depression, not that I'm trying to tar you with that -- but the answer from economists is that long-term is OK, because the economy has a long (or at least medium) term problem, and certainly climate change and peak oil are also long-term problems.  

I think the California system will be built in pieces, so that the whole thing might not be built until 2035.  But certainly if there was a national committment that could be greatly speeded up.

If speed is an issue, in terms of climate change, then clearly replacing coal plants, or eliminating the need for them, which I think it's fair to say is at the heart of what Gar has presented here, is certainly the "easiest" and fastest way to decrease emissions.  I suppose it's easier to defeat the coal/utility industries -- not necessarily even the utility industry, if they have something to replace coal with -- than to convince the 70% of the American public that wants to live in a suburb that they don't need fast, long-range cars.  But we obviously need to move both on the phev/ev front and the train front, both for climate change and because if oil becomes very expensive for a long period of time, there will be great pressure to turn to coal-to-liquids, oil shale, and other climate-unfriendly sources of nergy.

Yes of course charging stations are comparatively easy to build, and most electric cars can take advantage of them for fast charges. But we don't have to wait for that charging infrastructure to be in place to start moving on electric cars. There are a lot of people who could use two passenger cars with 100 mile range and 80 mile top speeds.  There are a fair number of childless couples and singles who could use them as a sole car.  There is a larger number of multi-car families who could use them for the major commutes, and some errand running besides - that is the bulk of miles driven.  And a large percentage of both those markets already have garages, car-ports or permanent parking places - that is either have a place to plug a BEV, or place they could install a simple 120 volt or 220 volt outlet, without investing in a charging station. And if you could reach even a small percentage of that market then you would have demand that could justify charging ports at workplaces, which would increase the potential market for BEVS which would then justify a whole charging infrastructure on streets, parking lot, plus commercial charging stations.

Here is how I can see electric car infrastructure evolving:

Initial market - People who can make good uses of two passenger with a 100 mile range, and who already have a place to charge their car or the ability to install one cheaply.

This justifies regs that make employers provide charging ports at work. (They can charge employees to use them.) The availability of these charging ports increases demand for electric cars.

That justifies putting coin or credit card opperated charging ports on the street like parking meters - not true charging stations, just 220 volt meters where people with who park cars overnight on the street can charge their cars - which let's people who don't have an assigned parking space use an electric car.

That does not rule out commericial charging stations and battery swapping stations. But it lets them come in at the point there are sufficient electric car drivers to let them make money.

But I think you're thinking too logically.

We're talking about how best to solve our energy/climate change/economic problems.  Getting anything significant done most likely means getting millions and millions of people to go along with the plan.  Short of forcing them (which tends to be unpopular) we have to try to get people liking the idea of the change.

Now, lots of people might do quite well with a car, or second car, that can't readily be driven more than 50 miles from home, but in the back of their mind they're likely to be thinking...

"But suppose I want to take a trip to Disney World/visit Aunt Martha/ride off into the sunset - and I can't get there in this BEV?".

A limited range BEV with no promise of being able to fill up quickly is likely to be a tougher sell than one in which there's a charger every 100 miles or so on the road to ....

It's a place where we might spend a few million government dollars (about $125k per rapid charger IIRC - price might drop with volume) and lower people's resistance.

(Obviously I'm just speculating here.  This is the sort of thing that can be researched.  But I think it likely enough that one shouldn't offhand dismiss the possibility.  Remember, you and I may be very rational beings, but there are those other people....)

Plugin hybrids with a short range, maybe 30 miles at first.

Then a longer range as lighter batteries come down in price, at the next stage of improvement.  The new battery would retrofit in the older models.  These would still be slow charge at this stage.

At the next step the backup generator would be replaced with a fuel cell that runs on multi-fuels.  

Finally quick charge batteries and quick charge stations everywhere there are gas pumps and battery improvements to get 200 mile range would make the vestigial backup generator, fuel cell or not, obsolete.

I assume shorter range pure electrics would be practical in cities and on islands first, as charging stations were installed there first.  Rural travelers would continue to have backup generators just in case.  The backup fuel cell generators would be available for lease from your dealer for long trips.  

So I say, order a million plugin hybrid economy cars per year for government fleets.  Retrofit them with better batteries every few years.  

The used batteries could go to the building power backup market.  A signifigant part of a distributed renewable grid.  Emergency backup batteries used for peak shaving in buildings.

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

Any sign of them become inexpensive enough to be practical?

Unless they become very affordable I'm not sure that I can see them penciling out vs. a small ICE in a PHEV.  We're not likely to see hydrogen become available as fuel.  Fuel cells are likely to run on the same fuel as we would use for the ICE.

--

Batteries that are degraded to the point where they impact driving range will have a significant second life for energy storage.  They're great for wind farms and utility companies to help them smooth out abrupt power shifts.

Given enough they could start helping shift off-peak power to when it's needed.  Good for the morning rush when the sun isn't ready for work.