Thank you, Isidore and Bob Kerns for bringing some facts and thought to the discussion, as opposed to simply bashing what one does not understand. Your comments have moved us to a discussion of the problems facing alternative energy for transport.
Put in it's most simple context, the issue to date has been cheap petroleum. All other over-the road powered personal transport must compete with the well-developed internal combustion engine model. When gas is cheap and available, it's virtually impossible for other technologies to break in to a market that is VERY tough indeed, both technically and commercially. When oil went to $200/barrel, there was a lot of interest (and money) in technologies that could compete, including algae oil, tar sand oil, wind, solar, zero-point modules, etc. Now that oil is under $40 again, those technologies are, for the most part, back in storage. For students of history, this is NOT the first time this has happened.
Bob is absolutely correct that "We need to retool our transportation modality and infrastructure to be more sustainable and economical."
The big question is how to achieve this. Alt-energy vehicles are not yet competitive TODAY,
overall, with gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles. Full stop. Full electric is OK if you never need air conditioning or heating, you never need to carry or tow anything, and the farthest one can drive is about 100 miles before you meet yourself coming back, and you have lots of cheap and clean electricity available. Outside of that environment (wherever it might be), full electrics, and current hybrids, have difficulty competing on functionality, not to mention cost and even "greenness".
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Proj..._Problem_2.pdf. TANSTAAFL, indeed.
In general, people will not pay more for vehicles than they have to. Hybrid/electrics that cost thousands more than straight internal combustion vehicles will not make it commercially. Again quoting Bob Kerns, "And as long as it's based on individual decisions, when individuals don't decide about putting their $$$ into automobile roads vs alternatives -- it will change very, very slowly indeed."
In short, people (in general) are unwilling to make any concessions that will negatively impact their perceived right to a given standard of living. The only solution to that, short of waiting for the oil to become prohibitively expensive or for Antarctica to melt, is to force people to act smarter than, collectively, they actually are.
To achieve anything beyond personal short-sightedness requires government intervention, and leadership. We've had lots of intervention in the last few years, but not much leadership. Maybe the new guy will be better. At least he knows the definition of science and can pronounce "nuclear".
EVERYBODY has an idea of how it should be done. I invented my idea about 20 years ago, and I was thrilled to see that someone else had come up with the same thing recently. Not everyone wants, or can drive a small vehicle (small=less mass=less fuel. Physics rule!) Those who need or want a pickup truck, or a SubDivison SUV, or 400 HP anything should be able to buy it...for a price. That price should include a very stiff "Planetary Harm" tariff based on CO2 emissions (= fuel economy). The tariffs are then used to defray the selling price of small, efficient vehicles. For the most part, the economics of this will push people towards small vehicles. If it doesn't work, ratchet up the tariffs until it does. Big honkers are still available for the bourgeoisie, and those who really need them, but you've gotta pay through the nose to get one. Such is the price of saving the planet.