Hydrazine, . . . it's not just for rocket fuel any more !!!

Hydrazine is ridiculously toxic for anyone to believe it would ever work. "minimizing adverse effects that any dispersed fuel could have on humans or the environment should the fuel tank be damaged during a collision" means what? That pedestrians die due to a collision 50 feet away instead of 100?

This is the most insane idea I've seen in ages, Hydrazine is probably mans worst enemy. Anyone coming into contact with this stuff is dead. I can not believe anyone is seriously considering using this stuff in a car. I'll not be getting one

"On February 21, 2008, the United States government destroyed the disabled spy satellite USA 193 with a sea-launched missile, reportedly due to the potential danger of a hydrazine release if it re-entered the Earth's atmosphere intact."
Nothing to be concerned about, Citizen. We will nuke all accident sites from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Dittos on the problems with hydrazine. It's toxic, and moreover it ignites on contact with air.

All the objections are correct. But don't forget, gasoline is already toxic and cancer-causing AND the exhaust fumes are toxic and carcinogenic too. We're just used to ignore it.
Anyway, Hydrazine in vehicles just doesn't seems to be a sound idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromitra_esculenta
wood scraps for fuel?
ene,ane,yde,ol?

I really don't understand some of these concept cars, it's almost like they don't want to make anything that actually works- I think the thing that makes the most sense is using SOFC and a lithium titanate battery 20-30 KWHs or something of similar properties - SOFCs can use most hydrocarbon fuels and they have made strides to substantially lower operating temperatures and increase power density and say they can make more- you have a car that can go 80 miles or so on battery power and if you have to go farther you have 30-40 KWs of SOFC generated electricity using gas, diesel, natural gas or it's bio-equivalent to take you farther - you can keep existing infrastructure and don't need a cable as big as your arm to recharge, you don't need some sci-fi battery with 10-20x the energy density of today's batteries- think of it as a super Volt, with better but obtainable batteries and without the inefficient ICE-generator combo.

re; billybob222
The ice-generator combination is no worse efficiency wise than any other combustion based generators once you throw in Transmission losses and where are you going to get the electricity sense the green fascists are death on any electrical source that looks like it could work.
Also stored electricity is a bomb waiting to go off, unlike gasoline that needs both an oxidizer and an ignition source.

Slowburn, I think you are making sweeping judgements about electricity that don't actually apply across the board, while pointedly ignoring the equal or higher toxicity of petroleum fuels (and the danger of gasoline mixed with air in a closed space). I'm not saying batteries are "the" way, but ultimately we can and should be doing better than existing combustion engines. By definition, any method of storing -energy- that allows for a rapid enough release to get a ton of metal, flesh, and baggage moving at what we now consider "acceptable" speed, without using so much bulk as to negate it's own usefulness, is going to be dangerous. The solutions are to either go slower (walk, bike), travel in bulk to set destinations (public transit), or accept that minimizing harm still does not eliminate it.
But we have proof of concept of vehicles more than twice as efficient as any consumer model out there - and efficiency usually means safety (less energy use = less stored energy to do bad things). We can certainly progress from where we are, and given the torque characteristics of electric motors, and the lack of waste when they are not in operation, electricity seems like a powerful way to move forward.