About Stan Meyer's system:

In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. According to The Times, Meyer claimed in court that his invention "opened the way for a car which would 'run on water', powered simply by a car battery."[1] The car would even run perpetually without fuel since the energy needed to continue the "fracturing" was low enough for the engine's dynamo to recharge the car's battery.[1] His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[1] The Water Fuel Cell, on the other hand, was examined by three expert witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis".[1]

On the basis of the evidence the court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the investors their $25,000.[1]

And his death:

Stanley Meyer died at the age of 57 after eating at a restaurant on 21 March 1998. An autopsy report by Franklin County, Ohio coroner William R. Adrion concluded that Meyer, who suffered from high blood pressure, had died of a cerebral aneurysm.[6] Conspiracy theories persist, however, that he was poisoned, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death.[7][8]. It is argued that this was done to suppress the technology, in spite of the fact complete plans remain available online[9]. To date, no one has used them to produce a working prototype.

He refused to have it tested in court and then dies from high blood pressure, which somehow translates into "technology suppressed, inventor assassinated."

Comparing the price of water to the price of gas -

Let's make this comparison fair. You don't get gas in bottles - it's transported through pipeline systems. So, if you're comparing prices, you compare with the price of water transported through pipelines, which is pennies per gallon, even in water-starved deserts. There you go.

Using compressed air to generate electricity and vice-versa probably wasn't intended as perpetual motion, but as an energy storage device. Considering there are few practical ways of storing electricity, this idea might have potential.

Fuel cells already look lame. It doesn't take a new ultracapacitor to do that.

First, these eestor "energy storage units" are not technically batteries. They are capacitors, which do the same thing in a very different way. When manufactured properly, they can easily last 1 million full recharges. For a car with a 300 mile range, this is 300 million miles. EEstor is claiming their capacitors will outlast anything you put them in.

Also, they claim half the cost of lead-acid, so it wouldn't even be close to $2000 to replace it.

If they meet these claims, you'd only have to replace it when it gets wrecked, anyway.

"How are these cars green? Seriously, I would wager that over its lifetime this car is more poluting than your average deisel."

Wrong for many many reasons

"Think about it, you firstly have the insane cost of production. the batteries alone use more than they are worth in energy to create."

If they can sell it for CDN$50000, then their producing for less than that. This is comparably to a lot of sports cars.

"Then actually running the car. Fine there are no emmisions from the car directly, but my god it will use a hella lot of power carging the damn thing."

Gas efficiency is about 20% while electrics get about 90%, including the battery. Also, the electricity lost due to transmission ineffieciencies is much less than the electricity used to turn crude oil into gasoline or diesel. Electric cars will use WAY less power than gasoline.

"AND FINALLY, the cost of these relitively short life-span batteries is astronomical. SO high in fact that people just resort to dumping them. And those things do not degrade."

The cost is low enough to make a $50,000 car, and will continue to drop (which gasoline cars aren't) More than 98% of current car batteries are recycled. I see no reason why this would change with different kinds of batteries. The lithium and whatever else would be made into new batteries - degrading wouldn't matter.

"Gah, the people who think electric cars are problem solved... First we need to rely entirely on nuclear power. Something that all you treelovers seem to think is evil."

The department of energy concluded that with charging at night, existing power plants could charge 85% of all vehicles, since about half of those power plants are only turned on for peak use. Of course, the battery development created by the electric cars would also be purchased by utilities, so they could store power and require fewer plants. I won't go into the pros and cons of nuclear here.

One more thing. Producing the pollution at each car guarantees that the highest pollution is at the most populated areas, maximizing the number of people whose health is endangered. Even with polluting power plants, they could be located in remote areas where no one lives, moving pollution to where it causes less damage. Also, unlike cars, power plants are professionally maintained, and usually in much better condition than an old car. It is also a lot easier to enforce pollution controls for 10,000 power plants than for 500 million cars.