I have a tremendous amount of respect for Andy Grove, and respect him even more for his battle with Parkinson's Disease. However, I think his plan for conversion/retrofitting idea is well intentioned, but not realistic. You are not going to convince construction workers, ranchers, contractors, and anyone else that needs "PSV" performance to switch to something that delivers anything less than that same level of overall performance. While some people buy PSV's for the sheer size & to compensate for small *a-hem* johnsons, I think most need the horsepower/size for towing, hauling supplies & people, etc.

Ultimately, everyone knows we are waiting on the energy storage (EEStor?); make the vehicles more economical with EEStor batteries, with the same kind of performance & size of current vehicles, and market forces will work to transform the transportation world as we know it.

The retro-fit to the EV should be first directed toward the largest fleets of vehicles: taxi cabs, corporate vans, police cars in large cities, government fleet cars … you get the idea.

Vehicles that are always in use and are in greater numbers that can be converted in assemble line fashion.

Axil is on target. If the government is going to get involved, then retrofit school buses, city buses, and all Post Office vehicles 1st. All are worthy of Federal monies (less political flak) and can have quick impact.

It would be an interesting effort. History indicates retrofitting isn't as cost effective as scraping the old and building new.

Like all general statements there are exceptions.

His 10 million conversions in 4 years would be followed in the next 4 years with 50 million breakdowns, 80 million days in the shop, and lost work by the owners. (all figures confirmed by astrologers and subject to change w/o notice).

Grove is worth listening to. I have a bias against retrofits but another bias toward what might work. He is right about:

"Grove said ... that the US was facing...an inflection point now with respect to energy. Fungibility of energy sources requires the use of electricity in transportation..."

Interesting that guys like Grove and Pickens are calling for serious action now. I'll add Gore to that list in order to bait the wingers... Pickens is more self interested than the rest, but his message is still good. I think Grove is a bit idealistic with this plan, but when all the smart guys are telling us we really need to do something, there might be something to it. Also note that despite the oil industry's hydrogen wet dream, everyone is figuring out what we've been saying all along. PHEVs. The infrastructure is already in place. I sure hope EEStor pulls our collective bacon out of the fire. Those guys will deserve the trillions they should make if it works. Oh, and Lad, the government really doesn't give a fig about our way of life. If Bear, Goldman, JP Morgan et al.'s way of life is threatened, then you'll see action.

Sulleny

While I agree with you that panic is a bad adviser, could you tell me where are your source to assert that "Now that global warming is proven to be BS" where are the proof you are refering to ? I have no problem puting into question global warming as long it is not confirmed by facts, but I don't thing there is any serious evidence that it is wrong either.

I think the guy has lost it.

It is a crazy idea - adding a second engine to 10M vehicles. It is one thing "hotting" up an ICE car - you are tweeking a single engine, but adding a second one is a much bigger deal.

All manner of electrification is good (or will be good) as time moves on but expecting 10M people to add a second engine to their cars is bonkers.

Better to encourage the sale of 10M city EVs to be used as second cars - the 2 car PHEV solution.

The low hanging fruit of the EV world is to add a couple of in-wheel motors to the front wheels of a Ford F150 or Expedition.. easy conversion and massive amaounts of fuel saved.. these vehicles have plenty of room for the batteries. 40 miles electric range seems a bit too much at current prices.

I think Sulleny has lost it.

@ Treehugger:

Clever word play does not pass muster here. Your misquote of my comment points to your desire to distort fact to achieve fiction. My words: "proving to be BS" - your word: "proven." The ability to read accurately accompanies prudent thinking.

For our "lost" friends - try to comment on the proposals and not your emotional response to sections thereof. Anyone else see Boone's backdoor fossil play?

And to the Manhattan doubters consider this:

"In the course of the last four months it has been made probable - through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America - that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated."

Letter to F. D. Roosevelt, 1939, from Albert Einstein

@Sulleny,

You can't talk reality to a converted religious fanactic full of AGW zeal.

Science may routinely replace old erroneous theory with new theory, but religious fanatics cannot have dogma challenged. It is stable and ever enduring; a foundation for their world view.

While Global Warming may have had a kernal of Truth until the world started Global Cooling, and Reality intruded. The anthrpogenic original sin eyewashof GHGs, is now discredited, and can't stand the light of day.

Algore and his minions wil fade into oblivion as time goes by, hopefully not into a Jonebore episode, but I detect that tendency in him.

But the zeal can still manifest itself as for such quixotic tilting at windmills as retro-fit conversions for tens of millions of ill-suited ICE vehicles.

Simply smile, chuckle, and laugh at the madding of crowds.

The Manhattan Project is the wrong analogy. This should be compared to the WWII mobilization. Pickens, Grove, and even Gore (in spite of his association to Global Warming)are all making the case for an economic security crisis. The first two may not care about the environment, but that is not the point.

We have the technology, but not the political will (yet) to save our economic bacon. That requires getting off imported oil. Doing so will require the use of renewables. This cannot be done quickly with research dollars, and we really don't have 5 years to start moving. The benefit for the the "right" is security and jobs at home, while the benefit for the "left" is rapid movement to green energy sources.

We will get there whether the Government figures it out or not, but they sure could help. And if the next president wants to earn a second term, he better get on top of this.

Everybody wins (except maybe the military industrial complex as we have known it for 75 years).

It is amazing these big names are coming out of the woodwork talking about the economic damage the price of Oil is doing and will do (which it true), there's obviously something to all this (both Grove and Pickens are at the end of the life span game, so presumably there's more than just money motivating them).

Hard to make heads or tails of Grove's plan here as it seems huge and destined to have alot of problems - unless world Oil production starts declining - then this plan becomes needed. I wonder what he knows?

Otherwise, I would think encouraging new production (serious rebates for PHEV, EV's etc.) should be the first priority (get the industry switched over) and possibly loan development/production setup money for the industry to push it along faster (& allow companies like Chrysler to do it at all). Production vehicles would be alot less problematic and reliable. In the mean time push vehicles that get great gas mileage (temporary rebates possibly till PHEV/EV arrive on scene in sufficient numbers) to get our usage down.

It all depends on when world Oil production turns down - hopefully we have 4 or 5 years before then, otherwise we'll need to call Andy Grove.