Chance

I don't know why mainstream environmentalists give this guy a hard time - just because he's is a Christian conservative (gasp) who is leveraged to profit from a large scale automotive CNG migration.

Can we be realistic? Electric vehicles are not mature as a technology yet. And no, public transportation does not work for everyone.

An infrastructure based on natural gas would be actually be pretty cool because:
1.) natural gas is often burnt off anyway as a waste product in off-shore drilling;
2.) Methane can be produced from anything that decomposes (manure, organic waste);
3.) Methane is easier and cheaper to produce than ethanol or biodiesel;
4.) An existing gasoline vehicle can be easily modified to run on CNG (many taxi companies in seattle do this);

Just because he's old, rich, financially invested, [and most likely a conservative] does not mean he is without a viable point. Let's give him a shot.

Thank you Sabastion for another interesting story!

What's greener: 1.) buying a more fuel efficient car, or 2.) keeping your existing gas burner on the road for a few more years?

I tend to think the latter.

Salad bowels, I think.

I read Dante's Inferno in college - it makes the assertion that the founder of Islam is also suffering gruesomely in the inner depths of h**l. (If I remember: He is split down the middle with his bowls hanging out.)

Just guessing, but that may have something to do with the ban.

Most people are unwilling to make the requisite sacrifices required to live a car-free lifestyle: and nothing short of $10/gallon fuel will change that for the majority of Americans.

That's the cold unabridged truth. Sorry.

Wake up.

It's the Great Recession. Higher taxes on fuel make no economic sense. If most Americans cannot afford $5/gallon gasoline, they will not be able to make an equally expensive payment on a new hybrid/electric car.

It's so ugly it's beautiful.

David Martin:

Keep in mind that we're not dealing with a "pure" electric drive-train in this first generation. The "range extended" design that Chevy is using is much easier to "hide" a tired battery pack than the strait-forward EV-1 layout. I imagine that most consumers would run their battery pack down to a 5-10 mile range and not even notice the difference. The end result would be (as I said before) a useless pack - fit only for lithium recovery.

I'm just trying to be a realist. Though, I appreciate you're perspective.

David Martin:
I never said that the batteries "just stop working." LiOns deteriorate incrementally. Most EV users will notice a significant difference in range once the battery half-life point is reached. However, due to the high cost of replacing the battery packs, (and because this first generation of EV's are range extended) owners will most likely run them down to nothing before they opt to replace. As to the life expectancy of the Lithium Phosphate pack, I'll continue to stand by my REALISTIC 2K charge cycles statement. With the battery half-life marker only 2.5 years into vehicle ownership, these packs will only be viable for lithium recovery. Nothing more.