I know that you didn't read the k/s page but it really does help:

"We’ve based much of our work on the large amount of scientific literature available on fluorescence spectroscopy for oil identification. A selection of articles have been collected and summarized on this page -- and we welcome contributions to the list. "
http://publiclab.org/wiki/oil-...

You clearly are clueless about the poor. They are working minimum wage jobs (with hours that vary on the whim of their employer) and living literally hand to mouth. They need a car to get to their crappy job. They don't have an extra few hundred or thousand to "pay cash". They have to pay rent and utilities and buy food. After that, there's nothing left.

There's an Instructable for that:
http://www.instructables.com/i...

I think it's better as Boing, boing, boing!

I have stuff that I only want to share with close associates. I wouldn't use any social media site to do it, though.
This idea is just stupid. However, there are a lot of rich people with more money than brains so it could be wildly successful.

The entire car is built of aluminum so it should last a long time (and can be easily recycled into beer cans or new cars at low energy cost).
Li batteries can also be recycled... wait for it... into new Li batteries.

Musk never said he'd build the hyperloop. He just said, here's an idea (free) to use if you want.
OTOH, SpaceX and Tesla Motors are doing quite well, thank you.

Electricity costs much less than the cost of gas.
Electric cars use about 250 wh to go one mile. This costs about 3 cents at 12 cents/kwh (my cost of electricity in California is about 10 cents/kwh).
A gas car at 25 mpg and $4.00/ gal costs 16 cents to go one mile.
It's just math. 3 cents is less than 16 cents.
Looks like a big cost saving to me... the HOV lane, etc. are just added perks.

One important problem is that nuclear has a lead time of a minimum of 10 years whereas renewables have a lead time of about one year. We can't burn fossil fuels at the current rate for another 10 years waiting for nuclear.

I think the point is that it should stay in the ground.
It should be replaced by renewable energy.

Thanks for this clear and reasonable reply.
Clearly you don't just stop the flow of fossil fuel without having a replacement source.
The credible way out of the problem of burning fossil fuels is to replace as many energy sources as possible with renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.). This will cost money and there need to be strong market signals to accelerate the change. Something like a carbon tax with the proceeds going to develop renewable resources would work (for some value of $tax and $subsidy).
The problem is political (mainly in the US) where the corporations which count fossil fuels and fossil fuel infrastructure as "assets" are able to corrupt the political process to prevent the necessary incentives from being put in place. I fear that it is already too late since we are now experiencing the effects of climate change and it will get much worse going forward. However, any reduction in CO2 now will help in the future.

Even reducing the CO2 cost of extraction, this oil is very dirty and produces more CO2.
Yes, it's hard to stop using oil but not impossible....
"So get over."... ?

This does help with reducing the CO2 impact of extraction but not of transport and refining... so still should leave this oil in the ground.
The rest of your post is gibberish so I can't respond.

Old geezer here.
My school lunch was a "standard meal" and cost 27 cents. We paid it to a sweet little old lady in cash. She knew us all so no chance for anonymity.

I knew it was the teachers fault.
Teachers are running the cafeteria now... what's next?... the school buses (they are death traps, I hear).