[Civicsman]

But I often wonder about the small gasoline engines that are used to recharge the batteries and for extra horsepower when needed. How they are solving our dependence on oil? Sure you're using less, but aren't small gasoline engines less efficient at burning all the hydrocarbons and potentially creating more smog?

The underlying assumptions are incorrect. Small engines found on leaf blowers, lawn mowers and such are indeed crap. They cost about $30 to make. They use a $2 "carburetor" which slops fuel around. They use charge cooling, which means the engine runs very rich to keep it from burning a hole through the piston They typically operate on fixed spark timing which is terribly inefficient and generates all kind of pollutants at the exhaust. Further, any air-cooled engine runs too hot and makes NOx. Two-strokes are almost impossible to clean up because of their fundamental combustion cycle.

Small engines used in automobiles are something else entirely. They get their efficiency from having less friction and reciprocating mass than larger mutli-cylinder engines. Because they have small displacement, they have less throttling loss (because they run with the throttle closer to wide-open). With modern engine management systems and exhaust after-treatment, they are are as clean as anything else out there, and in terms of grams per mile, they are even cleaner.

Are they "solving" the dependence on oil? No, but they are helping to use less, just as the Seg is doing.

So, with an acceptance of total electric cars, wanting to be the norm, what does anyone think about the future of recharge stations and what would they need to attract commuters, to WANT, to stay for a couple of hours to recharge?

With the technology now available, electric-only cars are not viable replacements for anything but inner-city and short-commute usage. That is a legitimate use, but limited. You only have to observe a conventional fueling station to realize that the average customer wants to spend about 2 minutes fueling, not two hours. Also, a full recharge takes more like 8 hours, not two.

On another note, I've often wondered why, and if, an electric car can't run on two sets of batteries. Both initially fully charged, then when the first set starts to get low, each wheel could have built in generators that while the vehicle is in motion, they could recharge the depleted batteries? Thereby, always having a full set to get where you want. Then they would only need to perhaps top off the batteries at night. What kind of flaws are with a system like this?

This is a great idea, except it violates the laws of physics. You're essentially describing a perpetual motion machine. Where does the energy come from to recharge the set of depleted batteries? Generators take energy to spin, and this slows down a car just like regenerative braking does on a Seg. There are net inefficiencies with each conversion of energy, from chemical (in the battery) to electrical to mechanical, to kinetic, then back to mechanical. electrical and finally back to chemical. If you got 5% efficiency on the round trip I would be surprised. I bet it's less. Not to mention that these losses say nothing about actually trying to transport the mass of the vehicle, against road friction and wind resistance, from Point A to Point B.

Better to wish for fusion. Physics says perpetual motion is impossible. Physicists say that fusion is 20 years away...and always will be.