re: #810 Honorary Yooper

No, we have them because we get the biggest energy bang for our buck with them currently. Name a better system for vehicle propulsion?
Solar? Solar craps out when the sun isn’t out.
Batteries? Been there, tried that. They have a limited range and need a long enough time to recharge. People have tried to make really viable electric cars for well over a century now.
Hydro? What does this have to do with vehicles? Nothing.
Hydrogen? Costs a lot to make for something with less energy than oil.
Compressed natural gas? Nice idea, and possibly viable, but less energy for what we get with oil.
Biofuels? Likewise as CNG, almost as good as oil, but eats into our food stocks.
Nuclear? Don’t wanna touch this one with a 15 mile long pole.
Steam? Once very popular for vehicle propulsion, it went out of vogue in the 1910s.
Fuel Cells? See hydrogen.
Name a better system for the biggest bang for the energy buck than the Otto Cycle internal combustion engine right now. I dare you.

electric cars should be an option by now, and many people would own one if they could…there is not enough cheap electricity to power them…why?