Sounds good. Personally, I'm fine with driving on electrified roadways. But I shudder to think what an outcry there will be from folks who already fear that their cell phones are causing cancer and other health woes. The EMF emanating from a cell phone is tiny compared to what will be coursing through your body as you cruise these future highways.

Expect to see gasoline-burning cars completely wrapped in tin-foil.

There's another way to approach this problem. First, through morphology; second, through a propulsion mode I propose calling the Battery Buffered Vehicle (BBV).

Nearly 90% of our driving is done alone and on a regular circuit. To accomplish this task, we presently use multi-purpose vehicles that seat a minimum of five, and are therefore traveling extremely lightly loaded. A much smaller vehicle, appropriate for the primary load demand, would decrease power need by at least a factor of four.

Present vehicles' engines are sized for necessary power requirement at ultimate demand and are run very lightly loaded most of the time, with high power demand being generally of very short duration. This is wasteful from a weight, volume, cost, and fuel efficiency standpoint.

Hybrids, combining IC and battery stored electric power have taken many forms, but what hasn't been tried is the battery buffered form, where a small genset runs mostly continuously providing power to a small battery bank which buffers power demand and flow. The genset is sized based on steady state power demand, with short duration extra power required for acceleration and hill climbing being drawn out of the battery pack.

The genset is optimized to operate at single speed. It can be very small, less than 30 kW, and be a single cylinder, long stroke, true Atkinson cycle in a compact, sound-deadened enclosed box. Drive could be by hub motors, thus minimizing internal mechanical requirements and allowing for a smaller external package and lighter weight and reduced wind resistance. The battery pack would be small, one-fourth the size of the Volt's, thus reducing the single greatest cost of BEVs.

Morphological changes and BBV operation combined could reduce fuel requirement for the daily commute by a factor of six or more, making biomass an achievable source of sustainable, long term fuel supply. I would argue that the small BBV would be a much less expensive solution to the problem of private transportation than the integration of electrical power cables along our highways for on the fly recharge and the building of nuclear power plants to supply them.

I do not think that people are that rational about the cars they buy and run.

They buy from the heart (and groin) - and do not really think about the 10 year cost of running a car.

Fred - is your BBV not a parallel PHEV?

But there is a definite trend to partial electrification of cars in all forms, from BMW's "efficient dynamics" and the equivalents in VW and Volvo, to HEVs and PHEVs (coming soon).

In Europe fuel consumption is going down rapidly due to the EU's 120 gms CO2 ruling.

Whether or not you believe in AGW, there are great benefits to be had from more efficient vehicles, and it doesn't really matter how this is done as long as it is done.

The market does not provide a useful way to drive this - it is too unpredictable - oil spiked to $147 in 2008, and then went down to <$35 within a year - no corporation can plan based on that.

The EU's CO2 limits, on the other hand provide a clear signal that you MUST decrease fuel consumption if you want to sell in the EU. It takes steady engineering work to do this and the corporations need to be able to rely on the rules.

Not sure how far ahead this research is looking, but the Dynamic Charging assumptions are rather appalling to me. I don't see this happening anywhere now or even being talked about by people that pay for infrastructure. Since roads are publically funded (we just assume they are there for our use) and the Dynamic Charging concept came out of the study as a low cost solution, I can only guess that the study made this same assumption about these special lanes? If reasonable guesstimates were included to accomplish inductively coupling on 50% of our major highway miles, I think results would have been much different. If this is true, it really makes me mad that it would be described in GCC as a possible efficient concept. 50% would be a massive taxpayer burden, for a very few folks that could afford to buy special cars to make use of it. Nonstarter, government is already over involved in private sector, they should not be building special energy delivery systems for special people and places. I It is an interesting technology, but not very realistic without massive government intervention to get thru the chicken and egg phase. By the time this could be done, battery and other technology will most likely have improved enough to make it obsolete. Concerned citizens should just say NO.

Pie in the Sky ...

I proposed a drive train similar to Fred's first post over five years ago. I posted it everywhere and sent copies to all the big auto manufactures. GM had the courtesy to tell me they did not accept out of company suggestions.

I have since designed a lightweight, crash proof body. I haven't wasted my time sending it to anybody.

I haven't checked your post yet shopa but just want to thank others for their intelligent posts!
-
Fred, you site the Volt and it actually will try to do what you suggest, except for grossly overweight. You are correct that vehicles need to "morph" downward in size/weight. GM is still stuck in the 20th century idea of a "car". It will probably take India or China to create your vision, then it will be imported to U.S. and sell wildly.
-
Instead of a trailer carrying an extra power source, how about a space within the vehicle already prepared for a small ICE or FC ? You just drop it in and hook up the exhaust pipe and fuel line and GO !

Could a very light weight quick plug-in genset, in the back or front trunk, be a practical solution?

However, if it can be made very light (50 lbs or so), one may elect to leave it in the car on a permanent basis.

If the generator is lite enough you don't need a trailer. You could use a hitch mounted cargo carrier/tailgate box; http://www.stowaway2.com/

BTW there's no reason the generator carrying tailgate box has to be 'box shaped.' It could be an aerodynamic wedge (what ecomodders; http://ecomodder.com/ call a "boattail"): Such an add-on can improve your fuel economy by 15%

For a sports car like the Tesla it would be like fitting it with a Le Mans style "long tail."
http://www.automobilesreview.com/uploads/2009/07/Porsche-917-L-Long-Tail-1971.jpg

Roger, I suspect this is precisely what GM will do to create a vertical BEV "runabout." They may even OEM the drivetrain and electronics for a subsidiary to market as a runabout. What all BEV makers have to be ware of is confusing the public with an AV without range extension.

The key is to position the vehicle as a short range commuter or town type vehicle. This will become a new category of transport product - especially for two car owners. One full range serial/parallel hybrid, one short range BEV. Until batteries improve which is happening rapidly.

@Roger
That's a hypothetical, worst case, possibility that apparently hasn't been encountered by a lot of users.

Here's an idea for you; http://www.christian-foerg.de/portal/project14_mov.php

Now, while I think the design of their vehicles is too far out, I like the idea of a linear motor in the pavement that both propels and recharges your batteries.