I am running a converted (LPG) car for a couple of years already in germany - everything fine.

But forget the hybrids: this is not thought to the end. EROEI: If you include the energy needed to manufacture and recycle (!) the batteries (and recycling of Li or NiMH batteries is truely energy intensive) plus the additional weight of the car in comparison to a non-hybrid car then there is no advantage of such a car (Basis: total energy in lifetime of car).
I was also present at Andris Piebalg's latest presentation on natural gas in Europe. Supply will be tight, and at what prices the natural gas comes is completely unknown.

Christech,I don't know any thing about what it costs to recycle the newer types of batteries,but it seems likely that it would be a lot less than building new ones from scratch.At least the critical materials such as nickel and lithium can be recycled,if indeed they are available in large enough quantities to build such batteries by the tens of millions in the first place.

As far as the rest of your argument goes,if energy and resources become really expensive,as will almost certainly happen,several major changes in the ways cars are built,driven ,and scrapped will come about as a result of govt mandates if not market forces.

One is that cars will be downsized,batteries and all.

Nieghborhoods will become if not more bicycle and pedestrian friendly, at least more short car trip friendly as zoning rules change to accomodate more mixed use communities.People have shown a willingness to pay more to live in nieghborhoods such as Richmond Virginia's Fan District where the biggest problem with cars is parking the ones driven there to eat out and shop.The developers will make sure that the zoning people get it sooner or later.

Another is that cars will be corrosion proofed so that rust will not be the cause of millions of otherwise serviceable vehicles being scrapped.

A third is that electrified cars will,after the bugs are worked out,last much longer than ice cars.
A well made electric car should imo last at least thirty or forty years,given the facts that the batteries can be swapped out easily and that the entire drive train is greatly simplified. Electric motors running in nearly perfect circles without the need of pistons going up and down simply don't wear out,althouigh they do occasionally fail.
I suspect that eventually very high taxes on non renewables such as steel and aluminum will ensure that cars are upgraded like computers and driven into the dirt before they are scrapped.

Cars will eventually be built to certain standardized specifications, so that critical components such as the motor /axle /suspension assembly car be yanked out and replaced with one either a new one or one reconditioned by aftermarket companies,in much the same way that light lulbs, batteries, and tires are standardized on todays cars.I expect mandates to have quite a bit to do with this development.My point is that cars do not necessarily have to be built with literally hundreds of components unique to a given model built for only a couple of years,as is often the case today.

There is no question that repair costs in this scenario will fall dramatically both due lowered component costs,reduced shop time,and dramatically reduced need for skilled labor.It takes a lot longer to r and r a late model car engine in most cases right now than it does to do the same job on a big highway rig,because the expectation is that the truck engine will be replaced or reconditioned at least a couple of times whereas it is the norm to scrap a car more than 10 to 12 years old in need of a new engine,unless it is in unusually good condition otherwise.

It is a generally accepted as a foregone conclusion that, the batteries excepted,the savings realized from eliminating or simplifying the intricately cast and machined piston engine with its hundreds of individual parts plus the associated cooling system, exhaust system,fuel tank,etc will more than amply offset the necessary additional components unique to a battery powered car.

Furthermore while it is true that we have a general energy crisis, it is also true that the most immediate aspectof this crisis seems to be liquid fuel for transportation.An electricity crisis is much farther down the road,as we can and will burn coal until we either suffocate or get it together with nukes and renewables.

So it seems to me that while you may be right about the life cycle energy costs of electric cars,the question is open to debate.

As a practical matter,if we can build a practical electric car,we will be able to supply the jiuce to keep them charged for a good long while, whereas the liquid fuels needed otherwise may be unavailable.This means the window to renewables stays open a little longer,and adds a couple of useful positive feedback loops as well.The batterys of a few million electrics can suck up a lot of kwh generated by photovoltaic and wind,resulting in less oil usage and more political support for renewables.It might even turn out that if your car battery is fully charged it will be practical to plug your house into your car and run your ac and lights on solar and wind saved from earlier in the day for a couple of hours,thereby shaving the peak load on the grid,thereby saving ng,which is the primary peak load fuel.The coal,nuke and hydro base load plants would then top off your battery for your in the wee hours,when excess capacity is generally available.

There is nothing original here,but it seemed like a good spot to sum up the likely primary advantages of electric cars.

Cars will eventually be built to certain standardized specifications,

Hmmm shall we have metric or imperial? This won't happen for anumber of reasons that have nothing to do with logic.

Firstly a lot of folks already upgrade their cars because of fashion reasons, driving the latest model etc. This constant turnover of the fleet has allowed car companies to innovate and get better efficiencies from the cars they do produce. Without this volume and turnover, the car manufacturers will struggle with R&D investment to actually make some of the EV fantasies a reality.

Second a company that has to build a standard model has no incentive to improve on it if their competitors are being forced to offer the same thing. It will simply come down to manufacturing efficiencies as the only competitive advantage and that has diminishing returns. Better to make something else that has a growth future.

Thirdly, the market has to want to buy them. It may be possible to build micro cars such as Mitsubishi's iMiev but these have limited use as city based commuter vehicles. There are far more wider uses for car sized vehcles that include tradesmans vans and utes, delivery vans, etc that double as family vehicles outside of work hours. Developing these type of mid size cross purpose vehicles to run on EV technolgy will require breakthrough battery technolgy to get close to being able to deliver enough power for a sustained period (at least 16 hours would be my minimum). This question of market acceptance of EV's is far from certain. There may be a segement of the vehcile buying market that embraces them but it is a sub-segment , not the whole market that will suddenly roll over to them.

The rest of the vehicle driving market may just do some some calculations on sticking with ICE, but driving a whole lot less and drastically improving efficiency by filling more empty seats. This is a different paradigm from the EV fantasy but one that is far more achiveable and doesn't require breakthrough technology or heavy handed government design standardisation. The market will sort it out, one way or the other...