The problem, he decided, was oil-consuming, CO2-spewing cars. The solution was to get rid of them. Not just some, and not just by substituting hybrids or flex fuels. No half measures. The internal combustion engine had to be retired. The future was in electric cars.

Agassi is thinking big. Google, Ford, and Exxon Mobil big. His brother tells me that Better Place is going to become one of the biggest companies in the world. When I ask Shai if he's worried about a competitor stealing his idea, he stares at me like I'm an idiot. "The mission is to end oil," he says, "not create a company."

"We still think we're selling to them," he says, after one of his long, drawn-out pauses. "We're not. It's not us to them. It's them to us. You see, people want this to happen; we just happen to be in the way of their getting what they want. We can't give them the car fast enough. That's something we need to capture: 'We're here to serve you,' not 'We're here to sell to you.' We're a facilitator, not the creator. This is going to be a community. We just need to get out of their way. They're going to push for policy, they're going to sell the cars, they're going to be zealots."

While I applaud Agassi's efforts, I think economics, not environmentalism, is going to be the driving force that eventually motivates the world to "end oil." Nations that consume oil want economic independence from oil producing nations, and individuals want cheap, convenient transportation. I'm not suggesting that environmental concerns won't help to sell the world on oil's eventual replacement, but that's just marketing. Were a gallon of gas currently selling for US$0.25/gallon, this wouldn't be an issue.

Agassi dealt with the battery issue by simply swatting it away. Previous approaches relied on a traditional manufacturing formula: We make the cars, you buy them. Agassi reimagined the entire automotive ecosystem by proposing a new concept he called the Electric Recharge Grid Operator. It was an unorthodox mashup of the automotive and mobile phone industries. Instead of gas stations on every corner, the ERGO would blanket a country with a network of "smart" charge spots. Drivers could plug in anywhere, anytime, and would subscribe to a specific plan - unlimited miles, a maximum number of miles each month, or pay as you go - all for less than the equivalent cost for gas. They'd buy their car from the operator, who would offer steep discounts, perhaps even give the cars away. The profit would come from selling electricity - the minutes.

There would be plugs in homes, offices, shopping malls. And when customers couldn't wait to "fill up," they'd go to battery exchange stations where they would pull into car-wash-like sheds, and in a few minutes, a hydraulic lift would swap the depleted battery with a fresh one. Drivers wouldn't pay a penny extra: The ERGO would own the battery.

I'm all for replacing gasoline with electricity (all other things being equal), but we'll still need a source for all of this energy. It will never be provided by wind, and assuming that solar energy even has the potential to meet such high demand, the technology isn't yet available. France has the right idea (and how often does one hear that?), producing eighty percent of its electricity by nuclear power. Worldwide, but especially in the United States, people will need to embrace nuclear energy if we intend to end our reliance on oil to any significant degree in the next several decades.

Stefanie wrote:

While I applaud Agassi's efforts, I think economics, not environmentalism, is going to be the driving force that eventually motivates the world "end oil."

As the PTB well know, fear is an excellent motivator. The real and disasterous consequences of our many management failures, ocean acidification to name one, should motivate some. While the looming catastrophes may be slow to penetrate the thick skulls of the chronically overpriviged, the greater numbers of the less-well-insulated will present many opportunities for additional management failures.

Nations that consume oil want economic independence from oil producing nations, and individuals want cheap, convenient transportation. I'm not suggesting that environmental concerns won't help to sell the world on oil's eventual replacement, but that's just marketing.

Presumably, nature/reality will assist the marketing effort.

Were a gallon of gas currently selling for US$0.25/gallon, this wouldn't be an issue.

I'm all for replacing gasoline with electricity (all other things being equal), but we'll still need a source for all of this energy. It will never be provided by wind, and assuming that solar energy even has the potential to meet such high demand, the technology isn't yet available. France has the right idea (and how often does one hear that?), producing eighty percent of its electricity by nuclear power. Worldwide, but especially in the United States, people will need to embrace nuclear energy if we intend to end our reliance on oil to any significant degree in the next several decades.

Similar to Moore's Law regarding computer processing power, there is an analogous process in effect regarding solar cell technology. See this TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.html

Sooner than most imagine solar cells will be dirt cheap. Already, cells have been devised which capture infra-red, rendering feasible the night-time capture of radiant heat.

I assume that the PTB anticipate the trends. Nuclear power is one of their last-gasp, rear-gurard schemes to milk the masses through complex, expensive, centralized production; before the inevitable dispersion of production.

It is in the interests of the many to anticipate and assist the deeper trends while resisting the many rackets, scams, and confidence tricks of the warmongering class.