Sweet - obviously not a technology relying in rare resources or hobbled by slow advances in technology or infrastructure.

The down side is the same as the up side.

Not (apparently) new technology.

Maybe an excellent engineering solution - maybe not.

A few numbers would be nice -

unfortunately the HEV Hype is killing other approaches of braking recovery based on hydraulic or flywheel when these laters are cheaper and more efficient in braking recovery. These low tech technologies would make a lot of sense on diesels, especially light and heavy truck and buses. A donwsized, turbo charged miller cycle high pressure injection diesel with an hydraulic or flywheel braking recovery would be very hard to beat by and gazoline HEV, very very hard my friend.

"non sunt multiplanda entia praeter necessitatem"

Hybrid technology is a methodology, not an end. The end is reduced energy consumption. If that goal can be achieved more simply than with the cost and complexity of electric hybrid methodology, then that avenue should be investigated.

I would hope mechanical energy storage, without the need for a separate electrical drive system, be developed for smaller vehicles also. This would pick the lowest hanging fruit at the lowest cost.

HG does like this one. He has studied it since it was first announced. Any device with mechanical energy storage has a big power advantage, such as also the hydraulic hybrid.

He is not sure if the fibres are best used in flywheels or in airpressure tanks.

He knows that electric locomotives with large flywheels in them were quite successful for pulling freight trains on railroads with interrupted third rail electrification. Almost anywhere, where large ultracapacitor systems are used, flywheels can be used at lower cost and longer life. Flybrid is also cooperating with others to make such a system.

Lithium-Ion batteries and ZEBRA batteries and wide spread electric grids and high power transistors have made the electrification of all railroads economically and technologically possible. If made in very large numbers, the material costs and availability of ZEBRA batteries ensures that they can be manufactured cheaply enough to displace $50 oil or certainly $100 oil.

For most automobile use, displacing of %90 of gasoline or diesel use is more economic than full displacement. The plug-in-fuel-hybrid vehicle is then a good answer to eliminating much oil use.

Methods to electrify motorway lanes have been and can be invented. Superfast charging of batteries is not well understood by the public, and the cheapest way to do it would be to have a very large (Wartsilla) engine generator ready to operate from natural gas at such charging stations. Mains operators would charge very high peaking rates to operate power lines and transformers for fast charging. Highly efficient range extending diesel fueled generators are more economical and more efficient.

Since any kind of hybrid vehicle gets much of the saving possible just by allowing the use of a smaller more efficient engine, we must continue this economic path in several ways.

Manufacturing gasoline and diesel from electricity, water and carbon dioxide can allow most cars ever built to operate on artificial fuels at a price less than $70 a barrel. Artificial fuels can be made at less than $35 a barrel from coal.

Much fuel could be saved by simply operating existing automobiles in a more efficient manner. People could also be required to buy the smallest engine possible to operate their cars within the speed limits of motorways. Zero to 60 MPH in under 4 seconds is not economic and wastes energy. ..HG..

The price of gas determines what sells. Cheap gas sells oversized vehicles. Expensive gas sells small cars. VERY expensive gas will sell EV's and other alternatives.

HarveyD, i couldn't agree with you more, on taxing gasoline.
I actually had not considered the road maintenance revenue issue. Could easily be solved with radio transponders onboard and as you drive past markers your credit card is billed. Had this in Orlando toll roads ten yrs ago.

I remember seeing an article about an old 2 wheel gyroscopic "car" that had a massive flywheel gyroscope in it and when you went around the corner the inertia actually made it lean the opposite way you'd lean a bicycle. I wonder how these spinning masses will affect the cornering and handling of vehicles.

ALso, to Toppatom, the reaosn the EV-1, ERav4 and all the other EV's failed is because Chevron got control of the patents on the batteries and prevented everyone from making EV's with them.

This is also why you still can't buy a plugin version of the Prius..... despite the fact that it's been on the market for 10 years, and that it uses the same NiMH batteries you buy at the local store when you need a pack of AA's (for which you can also buy a $15 wall charger). You'd think by now Toyota would have figured out how to put that wall charger in their Prius, 10 years later? Because in the 2004 settlement, Chevron allowed them to continue making non-plugin parallel drive hybrids because Toyota had been making them from the start and had a legal right to continue. This is not a big problem for Chevron because all the energy for a non-plugin hybrid still comes from the gasoline, and the higher price of the Prius makes it overall not a threat to gasoline demand. Now, if Toyota was allowed to put a wall charger on their Prius so you can get 20 km of charge overnight (and increase the size off the batteries a bit too to provide the necessary instantaneous power) then this would be a major problem for Chevron because then everyone would justify the extra expense of the Prius because they could decrease their gasoline consumption by half, if provided with a way of getting 20 km a day of electric-only driving. That is what Chevron was worried about, and they successfully prevented it from happening.

It is well known that pattent rights can and are used in various ways:

- to produce a product and stop copiers.

- to let others produce it and collect Royalties.

- to block all production in order to protect your own existing products.

Have a good look at who owns the patent and you will soon see what avenue will be used.

It is indeed well known that patent rights can be used in various ways.

This fact has been used to irrationally rationalize that a single 10 year old patent is able to keep BEVs from the market – really - even though it is obvious from casual observation that BEVs were not viable 10 years ago, are not now, and may not be viable for a few more years
– No affordable mainstream BEVs yet, from any auto maker in the entire world.

There are many companies I have heard of that have patented carburetors that allow 50 or 100 mpg in a full sized sedan. However, I am unable to actually identify these companies;
- but I definately heard this.

That was my point.

And one might add, the more you WANT it to be true - the more proof you should demand.