Can you please point to what that I have posted is poorly researched? I'd love to debate the facts with you, instead of you making ad hominem attacks on me while evading any questions I pose.
Please explain why you believe that energy density is meaningless, I am legitimately interested to hear.
That being said, I still believe it to be incorrect. It has taken some amount of time for battery technology to allow mass production electric cars to exist, and one of the primary factors was energy density (also cost and cycle life). How can you suggest that the amount (mass or volume) of fuel that you need to carry to have some given range is meaningless? Are you going to tell me that a fuel which you need to carry 2000 pounds of to get 200 miles is just as good as gasoline, because energy density is meaningless? Interestingly, this is a reason why hydrogen is a reasonably good means of energy storage.
I completely agree, although we may disagree on timelines. In 10 years, the majority of vehicles will still be using gasoline as a primary fuel (hybridization may be way more common by then, though).
Another ad hominem, it would appear. You don't know what I drive, and you don't know in which field I work, so you should probably not make statement like these. There is a big product that is going to be used soon (in commercial transportation) which is unlike any other to come before it; it is currently scheduled for use around 2012-2014. I'm currently working on building components for this product.
And, another one. I could make disparaging remarks about architects, or about managers, but I prefer to have a debate about the facts of the issue, rather than get sidelined making accusations about the character with whom I have only briefly conversed on the internet. Try growing up, and debate like a man.
We're not the same guy. I've replied to you with this handle every time, why would I be using another name as well? Just because two people disagree with you, doesn't mean we're part of some conspiracy and we're actually the same guy.
I've already explained this (re-explained it really, as the original statement was pretty clear), but let me try one more time. The context for the discussion was during the time at which the internal combustion engine was being developed. This, in case you aren't aware, would be sometime in the 1800s (as far as the development of engine technology used in modern cars). So, you must be doing one of two things:
1: Claiming that service stations were exerting influence in the 1800's (before they existed)
2: Ignoring the context of the statement, which is a particular time period, and making it out as though I said something completely different.
In either case, it seems that you have proven little. Care to try again?
Have you done any analysis of any of these cycles, or can you point me to someone who has, as you are using them as an example of why I am wrong? I would really like to see some data on all of them, the production and cost of use cycles in particular, but I have been unable to find good data on either, especially production.
On the other hand, it's possible that you haven't anything on these either, or are incapable of doing the analysis, and are just using them as cool buzzwords to make you look superior.
There are at least 3 different people posting here who you are accusing of being one (me). I've continued to address your claims using this handle, and I have no need for another. I can't speak for the other two guys.