We need something new. Something appropriate for city mobility.

Like a bicycle. :D

Our energy consumption was 6.2 kWh/100 km.

That's 62Wh/KM. That's really, really good! Heck, even the best EV conversions (typically home-built of small-scale conversion shops) only manage about 200Wh/km, 150Wh/KM at best, so getting it down to 62Wh/km is a fantastic achievement!
The LiFePO4 battery pack for White Zombie is looking to be around 200kgs. Imagine how far the TREV would go on that! It'd sure quiet the whining that "it doesn't have enough range".

I'm too lazy to do the calculations myself, but I wonder what TREV's Cd(Drag Coefficient) is. At anything under about 60km/h, it's not that important, but above that, it become the main factor in how much energy is used. Given the 62Wh/km figure, it must be impressivly low.

As you note, Phil, TREV (or any other EV) isn't 'the' solution. But TREV (or something like it) is one of the 'Silver BB's' we do need.

Nice find Phil - when are they going on sale :-)

Even micro electric vehicles will demand quite a lot of electricity for recharging.If they appear in sufficient numbers there will be a greater need for baseload power.

Outside of coal burning generation we don't seem to be doing too well at providing that at the moment.

Awesome.

Now get rid of that stupid ineffective coal powered motor and the batteries and put a smart 2 cycle rotary diesel engine in that body. Then you'd have something.

this may have a better chance ...

http://www.myersmotors.com/

but it may be more like ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3443/3740029949_c471af79c2_o.jpg

or http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2608/3725046514_f57f1be5b6_o.jpg

BUT

In order to be "Sustainable" , it needs to be "Economically Viable".

My gut feeling is ... electric Cars are not going to happen, and I have 2 EV's.

In the US, unless they give this vehicle a new type designation which bypasses the required "safety features" of conventional autos, it will never get anywhere. Perhaps a fancy 4th car for the monied who need a tax write-off.

I don't know if anyone else thinks that the cars in the US are ridiculously over-engineered, to the extent that a simple and economical entry level car, such as could be bought 20 years ago, is illegal. You must have air bags, abs, esc (electronic stability controls), tire pressure monitors...all adding thousands to the cost and maintenance.

From India ....

http://jalopnik.com/5354583/2011-reva-nxg-like-a-smart-car-but-electric

For those people that can't ride bicyles, and need a way to get around, a small 2 seater would work wonders, if it were cheap enough. As others have said, The US has to many extra things they have to add to a car for it to be safe, and that will undermine the whole part of being cheap and easy.

If It ever came to having one around here I would love to have one handy. I am very far on the underside of the income brackets and might not be able to buy one anyway, but I'd sure like to see them on the road.

It would make parking and being able to get out of a car a lot easier. It seems that parking spaces have gotten smaller lately.

Every time I see myself riding in a small car, I can hear the crunch of an accident in my head remembering several I have had when other people have hit me. That is one reason getting past the US safety laws will be hard for the newer small car designs.

Charles.

- It is large and heavy enough to kill whoever it hits. Fragile enough to allow whoever rides in it to be killed when hit by something bigger.

- It will need a noisemaker ... for 'safety'. What an improvement.

- It will need good roads made out of asphalt, large enough so that twenty can pass easily, with the multitude of parking spaces.

- Having these around for 'in- town use' will certainly cut the wear and tear on existing vehicles so those will be around much longer.

- There will have to be carbon emitting factories to build these with energy gobbling robots and whatnot. There will need to be large, ocean- going ships to carry them from China, where they will all be made.

- The balance of trade issue will be resolved, of course. China will be back to lending American consumers hundreds of billions of dollars so that the Americans can afford to buy ... not!!

- The intended users will be too fat to be able to get inside. Once inside, the combined weight will be equal to a current car.

- Add to the 'clients' the required suspensions, brakes, A/C, heaters, instruments, seats and sound proofing. These would be large, heavy road vehicles.

- Every where post- modern American looks there will be millions of ugly little scurrying blobs scarifying the landscape, running like rats from sea to sea. The small handful of makers will be 'rich' while the great mass of users will be debt slaves. They will spend their days isolated within their battery powered cocoons, saturated with advertising and propaganda.

Ugh, hasn't there been enough lazy mans' 'progress'? When are smart people going to learn?

Jeez ...

Oh look, someone finally dumped an electric drivetrain into VW's 1L prototype. ;)

very few people would risk mixing it up with 2,000 lb autos that dominate the roads today

2000 lb? The curb weight of of a Suzuki Swift (Geo Metro) is 1900 lb. Most where I live drive 4000+ lb SUVs and pickups - with one < 200 lb person in the car most of the time. Something like the trev is what we should be driving most of the time, but try convincing one of those SUV or pickup owners of that. I converted a Swift to electric and do 95% of my driving in it. It and the house are powered by 5.6 kW solar panels on the roof of the house (grid tied). It uses about 200kWh/mile. The trev uses about half that! The Swift has about 65 mile range (LiFePO4 cells)in a 50/50 mix of highway/secondary travel (55-60mph highway). My SUV driving friends think it is a cute novelty item, not a "real" car, and certainly not a real man's car, even though it would serve their daily driving needs. We confuse what we want with what we need, and we are convinced of what we want by advertisers who ensure us we will be inferior to others without it. Sheeple.

While I am generally negative on electric cars but I do think electric bikes are a game changer.
An electric bike is 15 times more efficient than an electric car(.016kwh/mi). Electric bikes go 12-24 mph with ranges up to 40 miles(charging takes a long time though, +4 hours).

About 25% of car trips are for commuting and another 25% of car trips are for non-commute business trips.
That leaves 50% of trips for shopping, going to school, visiting friends, and other leisure pursuits. Most trips are well under 10 miles.
Mass transit is used less than 10% of the time in conjunction with a car trip.

One problem is that bikes and cars can't really coexist.
When PO really happens we should probably just stop using cars. People will start substituting electric bike/trike travel to save gas.

As many comments above show, the real problem is not peal oil or even overpopulation and over-consumption.

The problem we face is inside us. Those of us in so-called developed countries feel entitled to a great deal of personal comfort and security, and to a long life of comfort and security.

We expect problems to be solved mostly by the mythical "Free Market" which will deliver products and services to us which will increase our immediate personal comfort and (misperception of) personal security, and which will be "Green" at no extra cost.

I noted in an article related to US politics (forgot which one -- on Drumbeat today or yesterday?) where-in the brilliant comment was made by a politician that clean energy and products would be produced "at no additional cost" -- in other words, we get something for nothing, that old political snake oil sales tactic.

Add to this that many in so-called developing nations want to live like the rich already do 7-to-10 billion fatties wkith diabetes going through the world's drive throughs and watching Tee-Vee on the SUV's media system.

Reality is that resolving overpopulation alone will be hugely difficult and painful, and that many people will literally fight to the death to defend their own right to have big families with high per-capita consumption.

We are transforming the world into a planet overloaded with intentionally ignorant and heavily armed people with a sense of righteous rage at everyone else, all looking for scapegoats to kill and also BTW take all their good stuff as a reward.

We have plenty of solutions for peaceful powerdown -- nothing easy or materially prosperous in the conventional sense of the term.

But no one is buying. When things get tight we have already laid the groundwork to create scapegoats and the weapons needed to turn our rage at being deprived upon those scapegoats.

Of course no one will win. Too many God-like weapons are in too many hands already. Too many of us depend on complex systems that will easily fail during chaotic and violent times.

We have already chosen our collective course of action. We are building towards more violence every day. Mostly governments of the "inverted democracies" are doing this, but of course other (mostly poorer) countries are doing the same.

I love bikes and walking and the cool light electric transportation ideas. They might be part of a good transportation blend in a world with no more than 1 billion people who have enough wisdom to understand and respond to the living habitat which supports them rather than to declare war on their planet and each other.

We worship violence, so these good ideas will seldom find a place in our human culture.

As several posters have already mentioned, the great efficiency of the TREV vehicle seems to come as much from it's low weight, aerodynamics and small frontal area as from it's electric drive.

Being a fan of the electric vehicle idea, it pains me to say that that it may make as much sense to use a fossil fuel engine as electric drive in it.

Think of it this way: Despite the solar dreams that solar proponents (myself especially) propagandise for, for the foreseeable 2 to 3 decades, cars of the TREV electric type would be propelled by fossil provided electricity, mostly coal and natural gas, and some small amount of hydroelectric and nuclear power. Coal being pretty nasty, we would just as soon it be natural gas...which begs the question: Why not just power the car with a very compact small compressed natural gas engine? Essentially remove one conversion step (from nat gas to electric and then back to mechanical power) and go directly from nat gas to mechanical?

Of course there is a problem we can see already: If we build such natural gas vehicles, and natural gas seems to be (as it does now) very cheap and bountiful beyond measure, then the vehicle would rapidly begin to grow and get fat...and before long we would be whisking down the highway at 80 mph in vast natural gas SUV type barges...So some would say why not skip one more conversion step (the TREV) and go ahead and build the natural gas barges...which is just what I foresee happening anyway.

RC

The reason we did not put a small diesel or gas engine in Trev was that we wanted a vehicle with no emissions. You can't do that with fossil fuels. You can do it with an electric vehicle powered from renewable energy.

Getting renewable energy for your house and electric car is often as easy as paying more for your electricity; for every kWh of electricity you use, your supplier is obliged to buy that much clean energy from generators. Wind power is a lot cheaper than refined oil. As more people switch to clean energy, we will have to build more clean energy generators and develop ways of coping with fluctuations in supply. The argument that EVs are no good because we get electricity from coal is not an excuse to do nothing—clean up your electricity supply!

Trev won't travel as far as a fossil-fueled car, but it will travel far enough for almost all the trips I do. For the small proportion of trips it can't do, I need to find another way. Behaviour change is going to play a key role in the emissions associated with mobility.

The safety risk with Trev is that I might be hit by someone wrapped in tonnes of metal. In a collision between a heavy vehicle and a low-mass vehicle, the low-mass vehicle will be subjected to greater accelerations, and the occupants more likely to be killed or injured. To be fair, we should all drive in the same type of vehicle. Should it be heavy or light? (Don't forget, we also have to share the road with pedestrians, cyclists and motor-cyclists.)

Yes, there are emissions associated with building and transporting low-mass vehicles. But the total life cycle emissions from these vehicles are much lower than from the vehicles we drive now. The fact that they are not perfect is not an excuse to do nothing.

Trev may not be the vehicle for you. But for a lot of people, a vehicle like Trev would give them the ability to drastically reduce their transport emissions.

Well, I guess now is as good a time to discuss this as any...

When I read discussions of the automobile, and what it really "means", it becomes obvious to me that many people, in particular the anti automoble purists, simply do not understand the nature of the relationship between the human and the automobile. It is important to think of it this way, the automobile as a "being". About no other mechanical device except perhaps aircraft or ships (and the average person does not have access to ownership of planes or ships) do you hear them referred to in the language used when describing the automobile, as having "soul" in the sense of personality and the attributes of a being, almost like a human created pet. Marshall Mcluhan once brilliantly described them as most like a man made wife, desired, catered to, even grieved over when the relationship is finally severed for whatever reason. It is the automobile that is most referred to as "she" by owners and devoted lovers. It is a relationship.

This is often seen as an "American thing" to which I will only say, not to use technical jargon, bullshit. The Americans did not invent the automobile, and in the eyes of most critics, have not elevated (or degraded,depending on your view of things) "the relationship" to it's most rabid extremes.

Let us pose a frightening question: If turned loose, completely freed of limits of law and even sanity, what would "the people", the glorious democratic "people" REALLY want?

I am a fan of the automobile, a fan of the automobile at it's extreme limit, I have never denied it(and in defense of those who honestly hate the automobile who post here on TOD, many of them here are honest in their disdain, and do not attempt {as the politicians must do} to veil thier hatred, and do not desire an "improved automobile" but despise the very concept of the automobile, the very spirit of the thing. But even as a lover of this device, this art form, this opera, even I am sometimes dizzied and even frightened by what "the people", the great democratic mass, may actually desire.

And it is in many ways a spiritual thing, sometimes the haters of the automobile understand this in a way even the defenders of the device do not (or will not openly admit). But the anti auto purists do not comprehend the nature of the madness. This is a primal relationship, an operatic experience, that cannot be truly comprehended, only witnessed or experienced. It involves deep (sometimes dark) human desires for power, excitement, freedom, it is similiar in it's compulsive magnetism to sex, bull fighting, violence and danger, in its core elements a form of madness.

Witness, if you will, a short bit of film. Pay attention not only to the cars, to the sport itself, but to the fans, to the great mob, to "THE PEOPLE". Note the setting of the music, the operatic drama implied and desired. This is all European film. Take note of the size of the crowds, the masses. This is not a compulsion that is fenced in by borders, not an "American thing". We are now preparing to see more than two billion more of the planets people become able to indulge the compulsion, the madness, so long as the planets atmosphere and the fuel supply can allow it....what do "the people" really want, how do they act in close proximity (as close as they can get even at risk of great danger) to the power of this primal seduction? Again, this is the masses in Europe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEnGY03YjOc

It has had the same effect in Europe, in Asia, in Africa and of course in America.

It is this the purists would attempt to stop, to outlaw, to CEASE. Frankly, I would rather try to outlaw sex...I would have more chance of success.

RC

The Trev would work well here in Taiwan. This is a fairly small and crowded island, but pretty affluent and lots of unneeded POWERFUL cars stuck in gridlocked traffic. But motorbikes outnumber cars about 2 to 1, in part because of their economy, but also because of the crowded roads and demand for scarce parking space.

The climate here is subtropical, so the Trev would not need to waste energy on a heater or defrosters. In a cold climate, that could be an issue, as it is for all electric vehicles.

I'm afraid we won't see the Trev commercialized until gasoline hits at least $10/gallon or is unavailable at any price. But by then, the economy will be free fall and financing will he hard to come by, and the masses might not be able to afford a new vehicle of any kind. Hope I'm wrong about that.

Anyone remember Ivan Illych who said, "Tell me how fast you go and I'll tell you who you are?" Anyone read Booth Tarkington's book "The Magnificent Ambersons" in which he describes the changes to a town as the automobiles push bicycle, pedestrians and horses off the streets?
The typical personal auto is an anti-social, anti-community machine. When you are in one you are the master of the universe and you can avoid all the unpleasant messiness of having to deal with other humans. Because of the danger, you also forbid the public ways to those who can't afford to go fast - the young, the old, the disabled and the poor. As energy supplies run low and fewer people can afford big cars the majority of walkers and bikers may have regain enough clout to lower speed limits on local streets. My grandfather used to get arrested all the time for going more than 10mph in his handmade auto. That's because the majority of people (male people, mostly) were driving horses.
Once you don't have to design something that goes more than 10-20 mph all sorts of possibilities open up. Personally, I have a BikeE recumbent with an electric assist for going up hills, a tadpole trike with a granny gear and an electric assist, and am having built an enclosed velomobile with electric assist.
In developed countries we already have smooth roads and warehouses full of chains and gears. For awhile we may have batteries and electronic controllers and solar chargers. We don't have to go back to walking everywhere but we have to plan to live differently and travel less far, less fast. Right now all sorts of people are building all sorts of little vehicles in their garages and workshops. We have to start producing components locally and this includes batteries. I love seeing what others are doing even if I think that high speeds are not a measure of success. These small vehicles will make living locally a lot easier and more fun but they have to slow down!

Perth establishing first electric car recharging stations in 2010

From Motor Mouth, on Geoff Hutchinson’s morning show, 720 ABC radio,

Wednesday 3/2/10.

Speakers: Geoff Hutchinson (ABC), Simon ? (regular commentator/ABC), Professor Thomas Bräunl (University of WA’s REV project

.....
.....

at the very end:

PROFESSOR: Can I just add one more point – the other thing that has to happen is the rethinking of energy production… only as clean as the energy provider, and Western Australia is mostly coal fired, so we have a long way to having more renewable energies to make up for the extra energy demand.
-------------------

So why start with EV recharging stations before coal fired power plants have been replaced?

They have just built new coal fired power plants (Bluewater)in WA

http://www.griffinenergy.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=76

Phil, great little car! I wish I could test one, charged by our PV system. A few questions/comments/additions though:

How does it perform in a strong cross wind? Considering its low mass and three wheel config, it seems to me this might be an issue. Also its size would seem to make it incompatible for operation around heavy vehicles such as trucks and busses. Just the aerodynamic effects of these large vehicles would be a problem, IMO.

How to heat and cool. Here in the SE US, one could dress for cold in the winter. Dressing for the heat, on asphalt roads (that get hot enough to fry an egg) would be a problem. While cute, the thing looks like an egg shaped greenhouse.

As has been stated above, safety is an issue.

Some ideas I have posted on TOD before:

Standardized batteries for EVs that could be swapped out easily at battery change stations. This would help address problems of range/charging times, battery maintenance, recycling, upgrading to new battery technologies, and access to renewable sources of electricity.

A hybrid option. A small, efficient FF powered generator on board would help with range "emergencies" and heating/cooling issues.

When marketing these things, include an option for PV or wind powered charging stations. Sell a solar garage/carport for these things as part of the package.

Competitive racing has been a huge driver in the development of ICE vehicles. An electric racing circuit (electric Gran Prix, I mean the real deal!) would help to get this technology off the ground. The huge torque/ acceleration of these cars combined with quickly replacable batteries might make this a very exciting prospect. Many race cars are already very light and aerodynamic and could be redesigned around an electric power plant.

To my bicycle friends:

I've ridden bycycles most of my life. Many are not able to ride bicycles (physically) and issues of weather and location/terrain limit their usefulness to many. In our rural location a bike has limited utility. A small EV would be far more viable/useful to alot of people.

Great discussion! I see a future (if we have one) where we will need to adapt ourselves and technology to sustainable limits. This little EV is a good example of the kind of ideas we will have to consider. Combined with more localization and electrified mass transit, our transportation problems can be mitigated incrementally. This will involve a cultural change that, I fear, will have to be forced upon many, likely by circumstances.

The plug-in hybrid has a longer range than an electric car. Toyota has begun to sell a plug-in Prius this year The Prius is the most popular car in Japan, but sales of hybrids in the United States have fallen with lower gasoline prices. I got a Yaris that gets about 35 mpg highway, 29 mpg city. Emissions laws have reduced the fuel efficiency of autos in the US. The local dealerships have been offering incentives due to safety issues. I paid about $2000. less than the sticker price by shopping on the Internet.

I think the Trev would be great in San Francisco if it could get up the hills. Right now electricity in our region is only 3% from coal, and that number is decreasing. (It is 40% from natural gas.) If people just put in a power strip on their stereo and media systems to shut off their nightly vampire load, they would free up the electricity to power their Trev without additional consumption. I think just switching out a few more lights in my house from CFL to LEDs might lower our family's electrical usage enough to make room for a TREV. (We could also add another solar panel to our array.)

In many ways the Trev would suit my needs well. Ninety percent of my driving is under 40mph, and most of my trips are a maximum of fifteen miles round trip. Very often I am shuttling my pre-teen daughter around, so there's just two of us in the car. The Trev would protect me from rain, which is when I'm least excited to ride my bicycle.

I would also enjoy a city full of Trevs. They wouldn't spew out nasty fumes (you really notice how nasty-smelling cars are as a bicyclist), roar with noise, and hog the road like the army of SUVs do. In addition we wouldn't have to waste so much public space storing people's incredibly large vehicles. So we'd have a quieter, calmer, less-polluted, less-congested city, and the planet might not become uninhabitable by our species quite so quickly. Sounds good to me.

All of this is recycled BAU. Throwing technology at a symptom and ignoring the underlying problem; a debt and interest based economic system that is dependent upon exponential growth, will not produce a solution.

We need to stop amusing ourselves with technological solutions that amount to little more than window dressing; regardless of how much fun it is, and address the underlying causes.

If a doctor prescribed this sort of treatment for a seriously ill patient, the doctor would be charged with malpractice. We need to recognize snake oil treatments for what they are and prescribe effective treatments in their place.

As long as we buy into the argument that technology will save us, we are still part of the problem.

There's a lot to like about the TREV. But, doesn't the "renewable" designation depend entirely on how the electricity is generated? This very nice looking and boldly designed vehicle might be more fairly described as simply "electric" in a very efficient way, but not necessarily recharged from a renewable energy source. Or have I missed something here?

I like the little vehicle. The price for an electric vehicle should only be a few thousand dollars to sell to the masses. I wouldn’t buy one. I have three automobiles. Even if the price of gasoline was $10.00 a gallon. I would just sit at home and drive to town once a week. I rode a motorcycle for thirty years winter and summer to work except for the period that the company provided me a truck. Today my son rides his Honda 250 scooter to work except when it rains. He says he gets about 70 mpg. You can pick up a good used motorcycle for less than two grand and still get better than 50 mpg. Only a person with more money than brains would buy an electric vehicle for $10000.00 to save money. The only bad thing about motorcycles & scooters is you always have to a car if you have a family. I like the little electric car but it will only come to market in the U.S. if it is mandated by law.

A very similar two-seat three-wheel vehicle is in development by Meyers Motors here in the US. They already make a single seat model.

Some good EV sites. A lot is going on these days:

http://www.evmaine.org/html/electric_trucks.html

http://evtransportal.org/

John Howe's very informative site:

http://www.solarcarandtractor.com/Home.html

May I start with a general observation...?

In these blog sites there is a noticeable absence of business pragmatism - if not experience. Probably because business people are too concerned with trying to make a living to post on TOD:-(

Trev is at best only an interesting idea. But it comes from people who clearly don't have a grasp of business reality. If they did, they would realise that they are arguing against human nature. The reason that people drive large heavy cars is because that is what they want to drive. Anyone who sets up in business to supply a vehicle that no-one wants (and including ZENN, Aptera etc) is likely to be condemned to failure.

Yes lithium-ion is dumb for cars too - at this time. It is simply uneconomic. If (like me) you believe that peak oil has arrived, you may (unlike me) be inclined to say that we will have no choice but to drive these impractical and unsafe vehicles. Other alternatives are appearing including bio fuels CNG, LPG and there will be a drive to improve electrical storage technology and reduce the cost of both electricity and in-vehicle storage. The latter is my preference and I have put my money where my mouth is. Wouldn't it be better to rely on Moore's law than expecting drivers to change what they want?

Most business people start with defining what the consumer needs and then try to find a niche and look for a product to fill it. So perhaps I will define what I want and see if you know any way that my requirements can be met?

I want a solar collector that will provide me 8kw. And cost USD1/watt to install.

I want a vehicle that will allow me to harness electrical energy that - although generated - is presently wasted. This consists (iner alia) of the following grid waste:

Night-time wind power
Off-peak nuclear, hydro and geothermal power
Buffered solar power
Off-peak electricity from gas fired, coal and other fossil fuels.

I want a vehicle that is driven by electric power and that has the following characteristics for my standard family car:

That can travel for 250 miles on a single charge (ergo, full use of 52kwhr of battery storage)
That can be recharged within 3-5 minutes (if I install adequate charging mechanisms)
That doesn't have a significantly higher purchase price than an equivalent ICE car.
That doesn't contain toxic materials
That lasts the lifetime of the car - i.e. more than 200,000 charge/discharge cycles
That is charged from my home storage system - preferably off my own solar/storage than grid.

In other words, I have a dream. But frankly, my dream has a better shot of success than Trev or the Aptera, or the about to be terminated ZENN Car. It is not only a dream for my car of the future, but also for my home's independence from the grid, and for scalable storage that will assist utilities to better balance their grids and more effectively buffer from renewable supplies.

My dream is on the horizon, and I have put money on my choices. But Trev is only likely to be conceptual rather than real.

Will my dream - and consequent investments - pay off?

LOL, Ask me in two years time.

kind regards
ei

for those who want a fossil fuel burning ride ....

http://www.eliomotors.com/index.html

Congress OKs making 3-wheelers eligible for funds

http://carczarconsulting.com/10/19/congress-oks-making-3-wheelers-eligib...

From Oregon comes ... the Pulse ...

http://arcimoto.com/

for pedal electric trikes ...

http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=16096

electric reverse trikes ...

http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15006

http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9863

The ultimate plan is to drop personal transportation altogether. Including bikes. Bikes aren't necessary for most people in a properly designed city. How many people are there in New York City or Paris, who don't own a car, but who use a bike regularly? Not that many, maybe 10%. Mostly, you get around by walking, supplemented by a subway/"heavy rail" (best), light rail (not nearly as good), or bus (ugh).

Like this:

See? No cars. No electric cars. No bikes. No scooters. Just people walking around, the way they have done in cities for five thousand years. Put a subway or train station every mile or so (20m walk) and YOU'RE DONE for the next thousand years.

You might as well do it the right way the first time, so you don't have to redo it later when you figure out how much your electric gizmos suck.

(Dieppe, Germany)

Life Without Cars, 2009 edition: http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/121309.html

What a real train system looks like: http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/122809.html

Live like Harry Potter: http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2010/011010.html

Folks,

A few comments in response to various comments above:

1. Trev is an "open source" car which anyone can build themselves. Plans and design calculations are available online at http://www.trevipedia.net and Team Trev encourages people to use them and to improve upon them. This is in contrast with typical ICE cars which are far too complex for people to build themselves, and which therefore end up being designed and built by companies which maximise commercial returns by focusing on customer "wants".

2. Trev's low energy requirements make it suitable to be recharged by ones own home solar PV system. So, in addition to being able to build it yourself, you can also power it yourself. Again, very different from an ICE car for which one generally needs to purchase petroleum from a third party.

3. The idea that "I won't drive a small lightweight car because everyone else is driving a large heavy one" reminds me of time I lived in San Salvador, just after the civil war there ended. Most houses in San Salvador were heavily fortified, with high fences, heavy gates and security cameras. With the civil war over, someone needed to take the first step and remove their own fortifications, so others could follow and gradually the city could return to normal. I see small cars vs. big cars the same way. Someone has to start, so others can then follow. I'm one of those starters and I hope others will follow, in due course.

Team Trev's entry into Zero Race (http://www.zero-race.com) will demonstrate the viability of a small electric car like Trev. It's actually taking Trev outside of its design spec - it was designed for urban mobility, but it if can drive around the world it can be s successful urban commuter.

Andrew

Many of us have trouble envisioning a future with decreased individual mobility. I doubt that in 10 years many of us will be able to afford electric cars which mimic the mobility of the ICE. We would do best by having a much more extensive mass transit system which might include rail, electric buses (catenary), streetcars, bicycle paths, and increased walkability, car sharing, and van pooling. Unfortunately, our economic system is most responsive in the moment at distributing scarce resources efficiently and does not handle situations which require planning.

Currently I commute 23 miles from a western suburb in Minneapolis to an eastern suburb southeast of the airport. If I think about how I would complete this journey (maintaining business as usual) in a more sustainable way, the only option I can come up with is some type of automobile. In the Twin Cities, we have 1 light rail line which might be a help, but I would need to take two buses as well as the light rail to get to Eagan. I might be able to get there, but returning in the evening would be a small problem since suburban bus service is unavailable after an early hour. My commute which currently takes 30 minutes by car would probably take 2-3 hours using available mass transit.

Of course, the reality is that when the SHTF, I won't be commuting to Eagan anyhow; I haven't the faintest clue what I will be doing. I might be able to sell the property I "own" and move closer in (10 minute commute to downtown by freeway, 25 by bus). If I still have the finances and the option, a vehicle like the TREV, REVA, or Aptera would be ok by me despite the drawbacks.

Some of us have a glimmer of what sustainability could look like, but I don't think any of us has much of an idea of how we get to there from here. It will probably involve blood, sweat, and tears.

deleted