The main point then becomes, in this perspective, how do we generate electricity?
Electricity [Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric] Heat [Solar, Geothermal, Radioactive] Fuel [Coal, Gas, Oil, Nuclear]
As well as the efficiencies involved in turning electricity into heat, heat into electricity, fuel into heat, electricity or fuel into motion... Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
Note also that turning fuel into heat may be only 60% efficient with older burners that let a good portion of the heat go away with the CO2 through the exhaust pipe, instead of into the heat transfer fluid (the water for the radiators in a house). You need recent "recondensing" boilers to reach >90% efficiency (they cool the exhaust so much that steam condenses and must be drained: if the boiler has a tiny pipe to the sewer, it is one of those). Also, tap-water boilers with a permanent candle were using ~50% of the gas just to stay online... Pierre
If peak oil is really hit in 2005-2010, supply will decline and even if demand stays constant prices will go up. Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
As you say elsewhere, the matter of what our expectations are about all this has a determining effect on investment decisions taken now. What seems important from this POV is what the engineers, the industry, the technocrats decide is the forecast they will be guiding the money towards. For example, we may not have super-nifty hybrids all over the place in 2030 if the automobile industry decides it is urgent to do nothing (or almost), as at the moment.
BTW, I may have missed it, but I didn't find our point that the auto industry needed coercing into urgent work on energy efficiency and GHG emissions came out very clearly in the summary; just, (p.5):
Some argue that it is only valid if it is part of an energy policy in which biofuels - as a renewable energy source - are integrated into a broader context of e.g. promotion of greater energy efficiency, reduction of fossil fuel use, promotion of clean (vehicle) technology and low-carbon fuels
You will have to work pretty hard to beat Honda and Toyota. They have already squeezed almost all of the fat out of their hybrids...the Honda Insight being the most extreme example...
The concrete world of highways and motorways, with nodes for fuelling etc, are a homogeneity all over the world. The one size solution fits this replicated microcosm well.
But all these concrete systems run through very diverse types of landscape and cultures which favour perhaps, different types of vehicles. Seen in this light, the one size solution works less well and offers scope for smaller automotive companies.
To give an example; you can find in some tropical/sub-tropical countries (Thailand eg) the concept of the open flat bed hop on-hop off taxi which cruise main routes. I don't know how efficient these are in terms of fuel use per passenger mile, but I would assume they are fairly good. (Certainly the ones I have been on were always packed). These vehicles are always heavily customised - but possibly only 'decoratively'. But I assume it might be worthwhile to also customise suspension, weight distribution, access etc as well as modifying engine peripherals for greater fuel efficiency under stop-go conditions.
All I am saying is that there are many other types of vehicles than family cars, and there is scope for smaller vehicle companies (I should have said this in my earlier comment, not 'smaller car companies') to provide transport solutions that take better account of the local environment and culture.
Instead of us adapting our lives to the mass produced car and the concrete system that has been built to support it, perhaps it would be more fuel/energy efficient for the vehicles to be adapted to us? You can't be me, I'm taken
Who cares whether Ford and GM don't develop cool hybrids? There's always Saab.
SAAB is owned by GM. Volvo is owned by Ford.
