As I mentioned earlier, you need to check out Tesla's amazing, autonomous "snake charger". It is demonstrated on YouTube.

Nearly EVerything has built-in inefficiencies and drawbacks. I own and drive EVs exclusively,.. the problem with trying to change to an all-EV society and trying to rely on cable charging exclusively is woefully impractical and backward for more reasons than I can share in this confined medium. In short, with the advent of ultra cheap solar cells costing pennies pennies per watt, and the ability for all traffic to charge up wirelessly while in transit, stopped at intersections, parking lots, etc., huge, expensive and heavy battery packs would no longer we necessary. The inefficiencies you are concerned with would disappear, wiped out by the increased efficiencies and reduced costs possible by ultralight cars with minuscule battery packs. Further: Â"a future that would only be possible with wireless charging stations." Apparently the writer has, not seen the Tesla "snake charger" that can plug itself into the car unassisted. Amazing tech, but wireless charging would still be better.

How the hell is complaining about liberals in such a whiny, childish manner any less troll-ish than someone pointing out the original pouting and foot-stomping? This is as blatantly biased and one-sided as can be imagined.

It irritates me to no end to see the kind of comment you just posted. Solar cells--- the kind we have on rooftops--- started out at nearly $100/watt in the 70's... obviously, that is not efficient, and, in your logic, it should have ended there. PV has dropped steadily in price ever since then, until today it is just a few pennies a watt. Even Saudi Arabia, who has the cheapest fossil fuel on the planet, has been installing thousands of acres of solar to power their entire country, carbon-free. You can find dozens of vids on YouTube to prove that out. Just because some tech is expensive to start with does not mean it should not be pursued. It is your kind of trolling that has helped the OPEC and the onerous domestic oil industry able to hold us by the balls for more than a century now,, and the solar industry is just now beginning to free us from their clutches.

OMG, this is important, everyone needs to be aware of the implications. Quick, I gotta post this on FB, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Google, Instagram, Tumbler...

Uggggh... what a troll! Musk has landed four gigantic booster rockets on barges floating at sea... 3-D prints his rocket motors for a tiny fraction of the cost of traditional CNC... is cranking out tens of thousands of EVs a, month with nearly a half-million orders WITH deposits for his Model 3--- makes 7-passenger, FULLY AUTONOMOUS SEDANS that can outrun the world's fastest ICE cars, and do so with nearly 100mpge efficiency--- and you are foolish enough to think he will create a TRAFFIC PROBLEM? You ARE joshing, right?

Battery storage costs continue to drop in parallel with solar... With some good battery storage, especially close to its point of consumption, they are going to reap even greater savings, as they would be able to use the power at night rather than rely on coal or other fossil fuels. The US has been moving aggressively in that direction, but if Trump really ends up as our president--- hoping against hope that the vote recount throws that out the window--- he and his brain dead, myopic lackeys may set us back decades in that and many other sectors of our society. Dark ages loom.

The sports car sector will be evolving, like the entire car business. EVs, by nature, will always out-perform ICE vehicles in pure acceleration, but as EV tech---especially battery chemistry--- matures, EVs will become less expensive, longer range, and harder for ICE drive trains to compete. EV tech will make all cars quicker, simpler, and quieter... roaring exhausts will no longer be considered a sign of power and macho, and the EVs you suggest--- inexpensive Toyotas, Hondas and Subarus, for instance--- will be dominated by electric power plants. One of the nice aspects to EV drive trains is their ultra-simplicity--- none will have clutches, reverse gears, or torque converters. I have two EVs, and one of them has only five moving parts---no pistons, valves, rockers, cams, etc... ultra simple, efficient, easy to work on without all those moving parts, and virtually no maintenance.

Musk recently stated their intention to broaden the product base to pickups, semis, a d motorcycles, and to return to the Roadster. Given that the top Model S is a four-door sedan with optional seating for seven passengers, if they used the same frame, battery pack, etc., but with a two-door sports car body, the weight loss alone would decrease the elapsed time by another quarter of a second or so, putting it even further beyond the reach of any ICE-powered vehicles such as the Ferrari, which CEO Sergio Marchionne has sworn would always be purely mechanical with no hybrid or EV drive train. It is impossible to duplicate the quickness of a fully electric drive train in any fully ICE powered car; it would be even more out of reach for one that was not turbo or 4WD. But the Roadster would not simply get a 2-door body, but be re-engineered in every respect to optimize the total package for two passengers, shortening the frame and changing other components as well. Nothing will be able to challenge it,, such as a McLaren, Lamborghini, or Porsche, without a purpose-built EV drive train. We can probably expect sports car times to drop below 2 seconds. Marchionne's stubbornness regarding drive trains... no electrically-driven components...puts him in an awkward position: he will either have to accept that his machines going forward will never have the acceleration only possible by four-wheel-drive EVs, or will have to break his arrogant promise. I suspect at some point he will realize he must modernize with EV components at least as a drive train option, or risk losing business to the competition--- perhaps even risking bankruptcy by not being able to compete.

BronsCon: You are looking at the world through a keyhole and thinking you can make an accurate assessment of our situation. 2016 is NOT 1973, when we were brought to our knees by OPEC, and there were no alternatives to driving bit to use gasoline. Today we have batteries that supply a dozen times more energy density than lead/acid, meaning that instead of an EV only being able to eke out 30 to 50 miles on one charge we can drive several hundred miles, and do it cheaper, with greater performance--- and the battery cycle life is many times greater as well. Solar cells are literally a thousand times more efficient today than in 1970; one watt of solar cell costs a few pennies... solar is so cheap Saudi Arabia is installing thousands of acres of solar farms to run their country rather than using their fossil fuels---they have the cheapest oil on the planet yet they are switching to solar power... if you think I'm bluffing, google it. If the Saudis are switching to solar, that is a sure sign we are letting the US oligarchs run us into the ground with oil dependency thinking it is the only way, when it is not... and they have the mainstream media (MSM) as their lackey cohorts to try to keep us believing it--- Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc... they are all helping the oil barons to hog tie us, but fortunately, one of the other things that was not around in the 70's was the Internet, which allows us to get accurate information before anyone can manipulate it--- you simply have to be savvy enough to know where to go and how to identify the liars. We DO NOT NEED PETROLEUM to drive any more---go to You Tube, check out Tesla EVs embarrassing the most powerful internal combustion engine (ICE) powered sports cars ever built--- yet these Teslas are passenger sedans capable of driving more than 300 miles on a charge. Too, expensive? Buy a Chevy Bolt EV that can, handle well over 200, and with the savings on gas you don't buy, it would be like buying a gas car for $20,000. Install an inexpensive Tesla solar roof, an affordable Powerwall battery pack to store the electrons you harvest, and any one of a dozen EVs--- whatever your budget can afford--- and you are off the grid for life, never again to a gas tank. Not everyone can afford all of that yet, but the average man can, and even the ones making a bit more than minimum wage can afford the used EVs already available. NO: WE ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE OIL BARONS!!!

I am quite surprised to hear that you had lost 10% in just a year. I, have had far less than that in my EV battery pack, which is typically a harder drain that loses energy density faster. There are several factors that could be at play: if a lithium pack is charged too high or discharged too low, it can age the pack faster. Heat can be a factor as well; and charging or discharging too rapidly also is detrimental. The size of the battery pack relative to its load or the solar input may be responsible... a, larger pack or adequate may have helped to prevent such rapid deterioration.

I disagree with your calculations. First, although you could conceivably ship in an entire tanker's worth of fuel, it would be impractical to have such a large storage array. I also doubt you have priced solar and batteries in the last few years... solar has nose-dived especially in the last three years after a steady decline for more than half a century. Solar is, not just pennies a watt. And I, assume you are calculating coats of lead/acid, deep discharge battery cells which cannot come close to the efficiency of lithium iron phosphate (LiFe PO4) battery packs that have many times the energy density, and, have a, cycle life of decades for such applications, when bought new. In the real world, though, it is better to buy a partially depleted pack that has been used in an EV for a decade or so... such packs still have a decade or more of life for use in such stationary apps, and are more cost effective than buying them new since EV battery packs can be quite affordable.

Wales is one of the cloudiest regions in Europe, yet they have been making great use of solar for twenty years now.

It really boils down to how much you are willing to spend on solar panels and battery backup--- and especially in the last three years, solar has gotten ridiculously cheap, and batteries have been improving as well. With enough solar you can generate enough power for a week or more, and with a large battery sink, it can make you nearly impervious to any need for generators.

You understand the polar cycles well. But the difficulty and cost of getting fossil fuels in the polar regions is so great that even if they are not getting sunlight for six months, the six months that they CAN get sunlight would be a huge savings on fuel that can easily run into the double-digits per gallon. Plus, in the polar regions, sunlight reflecting off of the bright white snow and ice can amplify the light - gathering effect. Solar costs have been dropping steadily since the 1970's, when it was nearly $100/ watt. The only way it was practical at those prices was for spacecraft and other extreme locations. In the last three years solar prices have taken such a nosedive in prices that it is less than 10 cents a watt, which is, so cheap that Saudi Arabia, who has the cheapest fossil fuels anywhere, yet even for them solar is still cheaper than gas or diesel generators so they have been installing thousands of acres of solar to meet all their energy needs. When coupled with today's best and cheapest batteries, we no longer need fossil fuel for just about anything but aircraft--- but even Airbus and Boeing have got serious programs in full gear right now to prepare for the day we have electric passenger aircraft as well. Our dependence on fuels is coming to an end.