The problem with the electric car is not in the electric car. It's in the world around it.

We really can't have rail-based transit to within 1000 feet of every house in suburbia. Just too expensive to consider.

We could, though, with some struggle and sacrifice, have pretty good rail-based transit to within 3-4 miles of every home in American suburbia.

This is, for many people, many places, much of the time, a walkable or bikeable distance. For those where it isn't, we can *easily* get 3-5 mile range out of electric cars. And it would work.

The problem is, more, the fear of public space, public transport, and the public in general. A fear instilled by Alfred Sloan, William Levitt, Robert Moses, and Le Corbusier.

So, rather than actually make electric cars and improve our cities now, we dilly around because electric cars can't do exactly what the Corvette of our dreams could. 100 MPH, 300 mile range, instantly refillable for $5.

Thanks for the correction. I wasn't referencing the film, though, but rather an article on grief I read a few years ago (although I have seen the film and love it.) Apparently, the author of the article saw the movie too!

Serai: don't get your facts from Bob Fosse movies! It's a great bit by a very funny pseudo-Lenny Bruce, but the change made for comic pacing is not in fact representative of the Kubler-Ross model of grief. All That Jazz isn't all that accurate.

The five stages are in fact, in order: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.

Breathed's strip is positively redolent with irony when you consider the various factors involved in grief. While the model was initially concerned with the emotional responses of those facing a terminal diagnosis, it has over the years become expanded to describe reactions to almost any significant life-change which requires extraordinary change, sacrifice, or loss on the part of an individual.

...with their cars are in for a rough time. I bet Senator Larry (shifty feet) Craig has a hummer.

Awesome. In the retarded sense of the word. I can hardly wait for someone to show up at the Oscars in one.

Yesterday, I found the website telling about a new car called the Aptera which will be out on the market late this year (all electric) and it's hybrid model in 2009. The Smart Car is available in several places around the country now. The Aptera (google aptera and take a look for yourself) will only be available in California initially (they're taking orders for it now). It has something to do with the three wheels, and meeting California DOT standards, among other things.

This is an American-made car unlike the Smart Car and others that are imports. I have no problem with imports (I'm driving one now) but I thought I'd throw in that factoid.

Initial price range is $27,000 (for electric) and $30,000 for the hybrid. They say it will run for 120 miles without recharging, and its proposed mileage is incredible (300 miles to the gallon for the hybrid is one number touted). My guess is the big automakers will be finding all kinds of things wrong with the Aptera and strongly discourage folks from buying it. But, my reaction is that the large car manufacturers here in the U.S. have it coming given that many of us warned about the need of having smaller, more fuel-efficient cars way back in the 70s. They didn't listen. Instead, they started putting out SUVs!

Frankly, I don't find moving to an eco-friendly small car something to be depressed about. I think it's a great idea and one well past its time.

Thanks. That rings a bell.

I've seen four Smart cars in the SF Bay Area in the past week, including one on the freeway. And yep, two I saw were parked nose-to-the-curb scooter style. The parking advantage alone will make them very popular in San Francisco.

That the average adult fatass is too wide for the seat and would probably have to be pried out of their own Smartcar with the jaws of life, I'm thinking it's not such a great idea.

Poor Steve. Didn't he drive a Corvette back in the day?

Actually as I recall it was a Buick. With a playboy logo dangling from the rear view mirror.

Solar panels on the roof of a car would be to charge its batteries. Except for some very specialized cars, the panel output will not move the car. As the nearby Navy base does, the panels can be placed on a carport.

The reason for putting solar panels on the car is only to have the charging source available at all times. Ten minutes to run to town, get careless and run around until the battery is low, park the car in the sun and wander around in a store for a few hours and you have enough to get home.

No, it won't work at night. Although the moon is more important than the sun, the moon won't charge the batteries.

So why is the moon more important? It gives light at night when you need it the most. What kind of logic is this? Go figure.

except the stages are wrong. It's anger first, then denial, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Ha ha - stupid Americans.

Just to point out a grinding law of the physical universe...

Putting a solar panel on the roof of a car is a waste of time.

The amount of solar radiation impinging on any part of the Earth is on the order of 500-700 Watts/square meter (To put it into perspective, 746 Watts = 1 horsepower).

A typical car has 2-3 square meters of surface area for solar panels.

Hence, at best you could get 3 horsepower out of a set of solar panels.

The typical car needs 5-10 horsepower simply to move, and about 20-25 horsepower to move at highway speeds.

The reason we use hydrocarbon fuels is because there's almost nothing else on Earth that can propel 3,000 lbs over a mile on a coffee-cup portion.

Same basic mileage as a Honda Fit and the Honda has a back seat. Unless you're a neo-Beatnik hipster and you have exactly one friend and/or one dog a Smartcar is a dumb idea. Do you think it's cheaper to park? I guess it makes a good SECOND car like a Toyota MR2 which has 2 seats and NO trunk front OR back, but that sort of defeats the purpose.