Lead acid? I would bet it costs less than 10% of the price of a new battery. Anything more and it wouldn't be profitable. Obviously it's profitable, you can by all types and sizes on a shelf at Wal-Mart. In case you didn't browse that section today, that's around $6.

Other chemistries are new, and have R&D costs to go with them. Suppliers are few. Raw materials come from other countries. They're inherently more expensive... this year. Just like with any emerging technology (like the flat-screen TV you park your ass in front of every day), the price will come down as supply and competition increases.

The problem is that a standard household receptacle simply cannot handle replenishing the energy you consume by driving. The "nonsense" you refer to is there for a reason, usually safety: if you were to try to draw as much amperage as your car could take, the circuit breaker in your breaker box would trip; if you bypassed it, the copper wires in your wall would literally melt. Even at the single-phase 240v 30a rate, it will still take several hours to replenish the energy consumed by driving.

Now, if you worked at an office building or a factory where three-phase 480v was available, you could probably charge your car in an hour or maybe a little more, assuming the battery could remove the heat fast enough. Why can't you get that power at your residence? Ask the utilities providers, many of which are still stuck with an infrastructure that was developed in the 1950s. That's why we talk about how the grid "won't take it," and "the last mile" is usually the worst, just like in the communications field.

(You may be able to get that high voltage power if you live in a large apartment building, btw...)

The traffic in DC grinds to a halt twice a day, every day (sometimes more). It probably has more to do with the horrible infrastructure and the imbeciles of bygone planning committees than it does with the POTUS going somewhere.

If someone filled your gasoline car while you slept every night, would you really have to worry about stopping somewhere during your commute to fill up?

Let me pose the question another way: Do you drive more than 100 miles round-trip every day? If not, then an electric car could work for you.

So do I, and I'm not nearly as worried.

Battery technology is ancient, and IMHO more R&D goes into battery chemistry than it does for any other part of the battery. When most people think of a "car battery," they envision a 50 lb. box of lead with two posts on top. The only thing separating the sulfuric acid from the cold is a thin layer of plastic. It doesn't have to be that way.

Imagine a 120-volt battery where each cell is monitored and charged by an individual piece of hardware; a battery that has it's own heating and ventilation system, insulated from the cold. It takes energy to keep a battery warm, couldn't that energy come from the battery? (It also gives off some heat during charging just from the chemical reaction, but I'm talking about when it's parked and not charging.) I postulate that the energy consumed creating heat to keep a well-insulated battery warm and at peak efficiency would more than offset the energy loss due to the cold weather.

Do you have a better solution to controlling the masses of sheeple?

Only the idiot panicy screaming passenger. How many of them would open the rear door after the plane had ditched in an attempt to get out?

I think I would've given you modpoints if I had any. I was thinking along the same lines you were, though I don't know if I'd agree that it would necessarily be impractical.

FTFY.

I have no problems defending myself on land, air, or sea. I would rather take the risk of being blown up by a bomb while living in a free country then having no risks whatsoever while living in ... whatever this form of government is. I mean, I thought this was America. I've been told there once was a time where you handed someone cash and got on an airplane. Half the people flying probably carried pocket knives or water or some other item that is restricted these days.

I find it amusing that a hundred years ago, the overwhelming majority of people would have agreed THIS was the "bad idea."

As the guy below me mentions, you can remove all the parasitic friction associated with transmissions and bearings and universal joints and constant velocity joints. Also, automobiles are a fairly direct (even if not truly parallel) representation of the issues faced: a large mass that needs lots of energy to be accelerated, and once moving at speed, requires much less energy to remain moving.

Many car manufacturers brag about how much horsepower an engine has, but really, the only time you use anything close to that amount of energy is on acceleration. With speed limits, that amounts to about 10 seconds of 90% power usage, and the rest of the time cruising uses 25% of the total power capacity. Guess what? Batteries and a small 30 horsepower generator fit that bill really, really well. It takes much less fuel to run a 30 HP diesel continuously than it does to accelerate a 100 HP diesel. Even with multiple stops and starts, over the average drive cycle the engine will have no problem replenishing the batteries.

IMHO, this is truly the way to go when it comes to serial hybrids.

It wasn't only Mercedes. In the mid to late 70s just after the oil crisis, GM tried converting their 5.7L gas engine into a diesel and selling them in the 1/2 ton pickups and even Cadillacs, IIRC. They were difficult to start, especially for the "get in and turn the key" crowd, and prone to reliability issues as well. This diesel learning curve that car manufacturers went through put a sour taste in American mouths, one that still lingers and that American car manufacturers are not likely to forget any time soon.

Luckily, someone did a rewrite.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/spirit_rewrite_unknown_author.png

Disagree. Many of my friends (people younger than 30) don't realize there's a problem. They truly believe this is how it's supposed to work, and don't question authority.

On second thought, I know people older than 30 who don't question authority, either.

So it turns out you can be ignorant at any age. I'll add ignorant to the running list of stupid, complacent, apathetic, and weak.