You forgot to mention the market for the Aptera hypercar and wither having 3 wheels has anything to do with it passing crash tests.

the three wheels has everything to do with crash tests. with todays crash standards it's near impossible to make a sub 2500 lb car. If you can avoid the crash tests, you can get great mileage. Just look at the CRX, metros, etc of the 80s that got 50-60 mpg. So if people want to have an affordable long range electric, they have to go light weight which means strading off safety and stability. The good news is the Aptera is so odd looking (cool, but odd) that most people will be slowing down to look at it. So it should be pretty safe.

Anyone have information on natural gas, methane, hydrogen cars in the US and other parts of the world/ Anyone working on a natural gas/electric hybrid?

I too am intrigued by the natural gas/electric hybrid. Apparently in some US regions you can get natural gas to fill up your car away from home, and certainly anywhere you can buy a home "filler" if you have natural gas service to your home. The slight range limitation of a full natural gas engine would be removed by adding the hybrid powertrain. Seems like a win/win, except that you are still burning carbon. My understanding is that in terms of CO2, natural gas is maybe 30% better than burning gasoline... anyone having better numbers, we'd love to see them.

Natural gas, yes CO2, but methane, no CO2

Acadia National Park implemented a free propane-powered bus system in 1999 to shuttle visitors to campgrounds, beaches, and other park attractions. In its first year of operation, the shuttle buses reduced CO emissions by 33 percent and VOC emissions by 25 percent. In addition, the shuttle buses reduced noise near park roadways by 6.3 decibels, the same reduction that would result from building a 12- t15-foot-tall noise barrier along the road. With the shuttle buses in place, visitation can continue to grow for over seven years before CO emissions reach their pre-shuttle bus levels.

http://www.nps.gov/transportation/tmp/documents/Factsheets/airnoise.pdf

I will be very pleased to see all these alternative cars. Our society love the 100% safety aspect of our transport... maybe we should drive slowly, focusing on driving instead eating, reading, listening radio and cell phone... a lot of accidents will disappear. Do you think that cyclists need all these heavy safe instruments to go from home to work ? No.. the danger come from people with heavy car/trucks which are safe ! for who ??
Aptena looks great. What is it with the air compressed cars from France ?

I am looking foreward to auto makers incorporating HotBlox products in their vehicles.

Natural gas IS methane--those are just 2 names for the same source of energy. Burning natural gas does release CO2, but only about half as much as burning coal per unit of energy.

Toyota showed a natural gas-electric hybrid version of the Camry at a recent auto show (https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1), though they haven't announced any plans to market a production version. I wouldn't get my hopes up too high for that technology, however. There's reason to think there simply aren't enough reserves of natural gas in North America to dramatically increase its use for transportation, though. In fact, some argue North American natural gas production will begin to decline soon, which will reduce the amount we have available even for current home heating, electricity generation, and industrial uses. While it's certainly possible to import natural gas, it's expensive and energy-intensive to do so because you have to supercool it to turn it into a liquid for tanker transport. Moreover, the world's largest global reserves of natural gas are generally in the same places as the remaining oil, which wouldn't help us to reduce the nasty geopolitical effects of our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

I think plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery-electric vehicles are our best options as transition technologies (transitioning to a society in which we don't move us and our stuff around nearly as much) for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that they would require the creation of far less new infrastructure than natural gas or hydrogen-powered vehicles. Virtually all homes, businesses, and parking facilities are already wired for electricity.

I have an aptera reserved (#432 on the list), but was really disappointed in the design changes they made in the latest revision (added external side mirrors, windows that roll down, and front wheel drive) all of which reduce efficiency for convenience and lower cost.

Regarding crash tests, Aptera is doing extensive testing and will demonstrate that it is as safe as any 4-wheel car. The 3-wheel design and its motorcycle classification allows the Aptera to forgo extensive FMVSS regulations. The way the regulatory system is set up in the US, it would be financially impossible for a small company to get a 4-wheel car on the road.

The Aptera will only be available in California this year and probably most of 2010.

Honda has the CNG powered Civic GX available, but CNG stations are somewhat hard to come by. Not too hard in larger California cities, though. There's also a product called Phill that compresses natural gas at home from the same lines that deliver CH4 to your stove/water heater/gas dryer/etc. and lets you "phill up" your tank at home. It takes much longer than a gas pump (many hours to fill an empty tank, and a couple hours for an everyday commute), but if you're parked in the garage for the night, it's no big deal.

Hmm, a cessna that rolls on the streets.

More practical: how about a carbon footprint analysis of netbook computers for shared work via net 2.0, bicycles to move individuals around locally as needed within a 10 mile radius, and real telecommuting-- coupled with sustainable development of urban areas: electric transit, walkable communities, and local food. That's my kinda future.

My 2000 Honda Insight (58 mpg) weighs 1800 lbs and passes the necessary crash tests, so I don't buy the 2500 lb threshold safety argument. I also understand that carbon fiber reinforced vehicle bodies would offer greater opportunities for lightweight protection via "bounce" mechanisms.

My 25 year old bicycle weighs 23 lbs and got me to work 156 days last year with nearly zero carbon footprint.

How about a Terrapass blog feature of the Xtracycle and the Surly Big Dummy cargo bike for real practical bike utility for those who would replace their fossil fueled cars without needing a second mortgage!

Hi, 2wheeler. I, too, owned a 2000 Insight before I wrecked it during rush hour last Spring, and it's true that it passed all required government crash safety tests. It was a tiny, lightweight car, however, and its design predated the availability of torso and head-protection side airbags. While I thought the Insight did what it what it was designed to do very well (I averaged 60.1 MPG over the entire time I had the car), I would not want to have been t-boned by a big SUV or truck while driving it (I rear-ended someone in the crash that totaled my Insight, though I protest that it wasn't entirely my fault!)--or a bicycle, for that matter. I now drive a 2002 Prius, though even it only has torso-protection side airbags, which increase protection far less than the head-protection type in a side-impact crash because the grille of a truck or truck-based SUV is at head-height when it rams a car in the side, hitting the windows rather than the metal structure of the doors.

And we have to keep in mind that the original Insight was a 2-seater, entirely unsuitable to family use or even for individuals or couples who have to carry very much cargo in their car on a regular basis. This plus its aluminum chassis and body panels (which are considerably more expensive and energy-intensive than steel), tiny engine (only 67 horsepower), and very lightweight suspension (which I could definitely feel the consequences of while driving) made it possible to keep the weight just under 2,000 lbs.

Unfortunately, carbon fiber body panels are still too-expensive to be used in mainstream cars, though governmental policies could change that equation.

12 years ago, Toyota built an electric version of their RAV4 SUV, that went 100-120 miles per charge. Now, they are releasing an electric car that only goes 50 miles per charge. I am not impressed.

The latest climate disruption science is indicating "business as usual" will be disastrous for us all. The Tragedy of the Commons is playing out on a planetary scale and the personal vehicle is a major component. Will we love our personalized transport all the way to our common planetary grave?

We have dug ourselves such a deep environmental hole that strategies for our social survival are needed AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The most current scientific findings show there is precious little time to mitigate global warming. Climate models are now trending towards hostile. We need to question the impacts of personalized transport in the context of climate stabilization and quality of life.

Zero or negative carbon living is the new (and pressing) goal. Transport in the United States accounts for 30-40% of CO2 emissions. Personal transport accounts for some significant portion of that, not including the carbon footprint of manufacturing and disposal. There is, of course, tremendous social inertia, aided and abetted by marketing and infrastructure investments that would have us continue business as usual. At some point we need to decide to stop throwing good money after bad. Circumstances now require rethinking the new conditions. The most effective carbon reduction strategies would start with good ol’ conservation and lifestyle changes. Complementing that would be the development of renewable powered energy - efficient transit systems. Personal vehicle transport would be the least effective in reducing our common carbon footprint.

Alternative vehicles, such as this blog discusses, are variations on the business-as-usual theme. Though they might contribute less carbon to the atmosphere than their predecessors, and might even be powered by a renewable energy source, they will have manufacturing and disposal impacts, and require an energy intensive (asphalt, concrete, steel) road system with continuing maintenance. And when you are on the run, don’t forget the impact of supporting fast food, charging stations, etc. associated with the lifestyle. With the Earth’s climate in the balance, these do not look like ultimate solutions.

All that being said, and looking at current “reality”, much press is currently given to vehicles with electric (battery) storage but very little to CAT (compressed air technology). Utube videos purport this to be near ready for production. It would seem to be a much more benign technology (and likely much cheaper). Is anyone out there privy to the current state of CAT technology?

Not only did they build them 12 years ago but they're still on the road still getting 100 miles per charge. Many of them recently gathered with Teslas, eBoxes and other plug-in electric cars at the Inaugural Parade West in Santa Monica Califorina. You can read all about it in
Electrified Blondes In Convertibles For Everyone!

Wow, so I would have to trade great efficiency for safety by riding in an enclosed, untested motorcycle? One that goes 0 to 60 in under 10 seconds? Um, thank you, but no.

I live in California where drivers are often impatient and aggressive. I have also seen a motorcycle fatality up close. The money and carbon I would save on transportation wouldn't even come close to paying my medical insurance or bills in the event of a serious accident.

For now I will stick with other ways of being green that don't involve becoming a red smear on the road.

I"m a visiting nurse's aide here in New England. I inherited my Dad's Jeep Cherokee. It's 10 years old with 160,000 miles on it. I get 300 miles to a 17 gal. tank. There is no public transport that gets me to my clients. They are scattered miles apart so a bike is a no go. My jeep gets me through ice and snow to my frail clients (half of whom are 90+).

So, what should I be driving? Especially as I have no additional income for car payments. Anyone? Bueller?

So I make other choices. Low thermostat (60 at night and 65 when we are home in the evening). No AC until the temp is 85. Been using compact flourescents since 92. Meatless meals twice a week. etc. And, of course, precycle and recycle and repurpose.

Caregiver-

It sounds like you have the right idea. Electric cars will never be for everyone (at least not in the current technology) and there will always be a use for a conventional gas burner like your Jeep. What most people shopping for cars do no realize is that you don't need to drive an SUV to get around in winter. I say keep your Jeep until it dies, but when it does you will need something to replace it. Your Jeep gets 17 miles per gallon, not very good, and by replacing it with even a moderately more efficient vehicle you will save a lot in gas. If you drive 250 miles per week (averaging 50 miles per day) a car that gets 27 miles per gallon would save you $9.00 per week on gas at todays $1.80 per gallon cost in Massachusetts. Since gas is cheap now that is not a lot of savings, however when gas goes back up to $4 a gallon you are looking at a $23 savings per week.

When your jeep dies look at any Subaru or Audi, if you NEED 4 wheel drive. Or do what I do and invest $400 in a set of winter tires on any car and get around better than most 4x4 trucks. Four wheel drive is nice, but a front wheel drive car with winter tires will do a lot better than a four wheel drive on all season tires. I've had them all, trust me. Also, there are a lot of cars that are available in four wheel drive that you would not think of like the Ford Fusion, Acura TL, BMW 3 and 5 series, Suzuki SX4, Saab 9-3, and more. Almost any of those cars will give you 50% better fuel economy than you get now.

But what it really comes down to is this, how would you do your job without a car? There is no easy answer to that, unless we massively increase the use of comfortable busses and rail to get people around which isn't going to happen or invent teleportation we are still stuck with cars. You could also consider a scooter or motorcycle for the warmer months and get in the 50-70 mile per gallon range, but they are not for everyone and cars are the ultimate answer. Leave the electric cars to people like me who live in dense urban population and rarely go more than 40 miles in a day, have a garage, and can rent a car to go outside the city.

And keep up the good habits of turning the heat down, using CFLs, etc.

Hi, caregiver. I certainly understand your position and see no way that you could do your job without a fuel-burning vehicle now or anytime soon.

That noted, you could get a vehicle that provides you better-than-average traction in slick weather yet still gets quite a few more miles per gallon than your old Jeep. I think Kevin's on the right track in general but Audis, BMWs, Acuras and Saabs, even used ones, will be more expensive because they're luxury or near-luxury cars. They also have more-powerful engines than really necessary so they aren't all that fuel-efficient.
Subarus are fairly fuel-efficient for their classes but they still have more horsepower than necessary, if you ask me. The Ford Fusion may well be larger than you need and, until the 2010 model year, not all that fuel-efficient as midsize sedans go.

Your best option whenever the Jeep dies (or your finances improve) may be one Kevin didn't mention: a used Toyota Matrix equipped with optional all-wheel drive. The Matrix has a higher EPA fuel economy rating (22 city/29 highway/25 combined) than any of the vehicles he mentioned and an excellent reliability history. Also be aware that the Pontiac Vibe is a twin of the Matrix except for styling differences (Toyota and GM jointly developed the platform that underpins both) and is also available in AWD versions. AWD was available on both vehicles from model years 2003-6. AWD is available again as of the redesigned 2009 model but it only seems to be available on vehicles with a more-powerful engine, dropping fuel economy to 20 city/26 highway/22 combined.

Also, the Matrix/Vibe are available with optional side airbag packages which make the car much safer in a side impact. Torso-protection side airbags were available 2003-4 and both torso and head-protection side airbags (which are the ones that improve safety very dramatically) were available from 2005-8.

Oh, and one other thing, caregiver: Whatever its 4WD virtues, the Jeep Cherokee has a high center-of-gravity and, consequently, a much-greater tendency to go out of control and roll over than the Matrix/Vibe. Its frontal and front side impact crash test ratings aren't very good, either.

I totally forgot about the Vibe/Matrix twins, they are a good bet for you. Again, unless you thing you MUST have four wheel drive (like if you live at the top of a very large mountain) you should be fine with a front wheel drive car and winter tires. A front wheel drive car will give you better fuel economy than a four wheel drive (sometimes referred to as all wheel drive) in every circumstance. However the savings in gas might even out in the cost of the winter tires (plus you need someplace to store the tires when not in use) over the lifespan of the car. But you won't be creating the additional pollution by burning the extra fuel. Anything will be better than your Jeep though, as those engines were not regulated like a car's engines are and are therefore pollute much more than any car, no matter what the MPG.

I am curious about the electric battery operated vehicles. Everyone bemoans the range of 120-160 miles. Why not standardize all electric car batteries and have replacement stations every 100 miles or so. You pull in to a station and pull out the de-charged battery and put in a charged one, pay a small fee to pay for the electricity and storage space, say $2.00, and you continue your journey. Also have plugs at most restaurants or city parking lots and wayside rests so that you could charge your battery while eating, shopping, visiting, or resting. A meter would take a quarter for per ten minute charge. The range should not be the issue. True, you may never see your original battery again, but there would always be one waiting just down the road. Standardizing all batteries for vehicles would be the most important concern. It took many years to standardized the lightbulb socket. Let's not make that mistake again.

Battery-swapping is only sensible when the car company owns the battery, so there's no hassle over the residual worth of the battery that you're swapping out or swapping in (if you owned a nice new battery, an unscrupulous dealer could swap it for a crappy old one and leave you holding the bag). In the current paradigm of the battery being sold with the car, it makes more sense to have ubiquitous charging stations. Of course, even better would be a car with solar electric pigment in the body panels so that the car could soak up rays and charge itself when it sits in the parking lot a work. Of course, that's a ways off. Since I can only charge my car at home, and my commute to work takes 2/3rds of a charge each way, I have to rely on gasoline for the return trip. I hope that my employer gets charging stations before the price of gas goes back up.