Why not Zinc-air batteries for elelctric cars:
Unut price 30-50% that of lithium-ion
Energy density: 200% that of Li-ion kWh/kg
Recharging: as fast as gar, by swapping deleted ZnO cassettes with new Zn ones
Energy generation: distributed, carbotherimically from carcoal, combustible waste, solar
Dependence: none, zinc is 4:th most abundat metal in earth crust

It seems that Europe is opting for small high efficiency diesel vehicles instead of hybrids as we are in North America. Given that there is room for technological development for biofuels to augment or replace diesel, is this not a viable option? It gives room for both development and localization. Perhaps you have addressed this in your book, I will be reading it to look for information about this and other aspects of your view.

I was thinking in a broader context and so perhaps have not used the correct terminology. I am a retired chemist and so see infinite possibilities to develop diesel fuel alternatives using more renewable resources. Take for instance the work reported in November 2009 being done by Volvo in Sweden, a climate similar to mine in Canada where I am involved with growing and harvesting poplar and pine on my own property (so I feel some “locality”). The Swedes and Danes are working on a product called Dimethyl ether (DME) which is a gas that is transformed into a liquid under low pressure to make it straightforward to handle. When used as a fuel in a diesel engine, DME is apparently efficient, produces less particulate emissions and is quieter. Interestingly, with this fuel the engine is supposed to produce a higher starting higher torque. In other words this may prove to not only be a replacement but also an improvement over existing diesel. Bio-DME is a byproduct of natural gas and more recently from other biomass sources, one being the so called “black liquor” from the forestry industry. The EU is looking at replacing about half of heavy diesel used for heavy truck transport with Bio-DME by 2030. Naturally the economics of any biomass source must be considered, but food production biomass is not the only one. I was speaking of leading technologies for biomass which consider availability, technical aspects and economics – not existing technologies that we can just turn on now.

I agree with your article. The issue I see over and over is quick fix alternatives based on the tiny world the person lives in. It took me about five minutes with a hand held calculator to see corn based ethenol was a dead end but billions were invested. That goes for the rest of the “alternatives” solutions as well. I know, very well, that alternatives will work, they just won't allow the scope of activity we now have which means massive changes in lifestyle. There won't be any jumping in the car and driving from Minneapolis to northern Minnesota for a weekend of boating which means tourism in northern Minnesota is a dead end.

People say “do this” or “do that” based on OPINIONS not on hard facts. We're at the stage of wishful thinking which is always an early stage of adjusting to rapid change. For example, we'll just drive electric cars that we charge at night. Sounds great except how long does it take to replace a fleet of 300 million cars? 15 to 20 years. What happens to the massive economic losses when the car you are trading in is worth half what you thought. Or did you factor in the numbers of people who work at night so would have to plug in during the day? Did you actually calculate the numbers of cars, the kilowatt hours needed and are they actually available even at night? Will the existing power infrastructure handle the increased loads? What about the extra maintenance needed to maintain the constantly used infrastructure? What I'm getting at is all of the alternatives involve extremely complex issues that aren't solved on a piece of scratch paper and the issues are far, far beyond my simplistic questions.

In fact, I listened to your talk of which part was all the jobs that would come back. My thoughts “oh sure”. We don't have the factories, the work force, other infrastructure, etc, etc.
Sounds great and, right now, we're at the stage where anything said has to have a “positive” twist as the public can't handle anything else. We're in one helluva corner and time is running extremely short. Like we might be too late already.

Zinc – great idea – do you know anyone doing / preparing to use this method?

I do, and they have the means for the (quick) recharging for powering cars, AND homes, and at lower cost than now for both. Right now they are offering a program using & saving 100% of your Federal income taxes – acquiring equity in their solar power plant at NO COST – no out of pocket expense. They will be able to power our cars and homes with clean solar energy and for less than current costs. Installations are being built now. More Info here: http://www.tnns.org/energy

I would like to complement you on a first rate book. It is truly excellent.

I am a little surprised that neither you nor anyone I have read has considered a supeconducting electric network. While it would have a high initial cost and significant maintenance energy, it would allow continent-wide electricity transfer = equalization of cloud, wind, and peak time effects which hamper green energy.

…not to mention the fact that lithium itself is in limited supply in the world. I've been involved with the electric bike movement for years. When it comes to electric vehicles of any kind in North America, the biggest hurdle is culture. It's gotta work EXACTLY like a combustion engine or people will reject it outright. That means no compromise on convenience, distance or price.

what is call about electric cars for me? is that they dont sound at all…

An even bigger problem I would imagine would be to see where the electricety is coming from. Today and on average in the world dirty coal is used to generate some 50% off all elecricity. In france they have nuclear capacity and thus most of theior elecricety comes from that source. In the scandinavian countries the are fortunate as a large part of all the elecricity comes from renuabele water power. China however get more than 70% of all its elecricity from coal.

As we're now facing not only peak oil, but in fact also peak coal
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Personal/Mikael/Coal…

As well as possibly also Peak Uranium,A report published by MIT suggests the world faces a uranium shortage from 2013
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/

Given such an environment how could then transforming all fossil based transportation in to electrical bases viechels even be considered as a possible solution at all?

Electric powered cars are not only convenient. It is also good for our environment because it emits no harmful gas emissions that only contribute to climate change.

Many people forget electric cars of today waste a lot of batteries…toxic batteries that we need to throw out more often than gas cars so it's not that enviromental.

The idea that we’re going to somehow replace 300 million gas vehicles in US alone is outright insane. Supply-side lithium/ zinc and power generation is going to see immense strain, and none of these processes are entirely green.

Truth is, our cities are going to have to become far more compact whether we like it or not. While it is true that affluent people throughout the first world are living far closer to work, far poorer ( often welfare dependent) working class citizens living in the suburbs are not going to be driving a “green” suburbia revolution.