The idea that EV's are acceptable is extremely dubious on thermodynamic grounds, at least with the existing electricity infrastructure. One merely needs to count the number of energy transformations and shipments to see this. In my first post here I referred to a paper in Environmental Science and Technology showing that in China - where 100 million EV vehicles are already in operation - most of them scooters - the electric cars - were as bad, in terms of particulates in air pollution as diesels and actually worse than gasoline powered cars.
The EV car is the worst idea in energy since, well, the car itself, irrespective of the dubious popularity of this scheme. Besides the thermodynamics, there is a toxicological issue of metals, electrolytes, etc.
The electric car is an environmental disaster waiting to happen.
I gave my reasons for thinking so here: http://theenergycollective.com/nnadir/221226/green-electric-car-actually-green-external-cost-lithium-batteries
Happily of the one billion cars on this planet, a trivial number of them are electric cars.
(The Chinese electric scooter, by contrast, is a pretty clean vehicle compared to about everything else, except for the thing that it replaced in China, the bicycle, which was the main form of transport in China for much of the last half of the 20th century.)
In general, I oppose the car culture in its entirety, and believe that every effort should be made to reduce the reliance of humanity on this awful exercise in distributed energy.
I note that a complain about flammability would extend to all internal combustion engines. People are killed in gasoline fires all the time, and the reason we don't care is because it's relatively common. If gasoline fires that kill people were as widely published, and published as hysterically, as stories about radiation from Fukushima (which hasn't killed anyone) we might actually pay attention to the tragedy that gasoline represents.
Although I oppose the car culture in general, I am hard pressed to find any fuel for it that can match DME. It has a remarkably short atmospheric half life, on the order of 5 days; it easily removed from water in spills, it has a high critical temperature and, I think you may wish to check this, the HC profile is absurdly small when compared with any dangerous fossil fuel. Any complaint you have about DME is far worse with the more widely utilized fuels gasoline, natural gas, propane, diesel fuel, etc.
I note that DME will never have the transport problems that electricity has, nor does it's use depend on utilization cycles; it's inherently stored energy, energy that I note is readily accessible from nuclear energy, albeit not with the kind of reactors we use now.
I believe that some kind of self propelled vehicle, things like tractors, buses, ambulances are acceptable, although none will be without risks to health and the environment. The best we can do is to try to minimize, combinatorially, risk.
I've been collecting papers on DME for quite some time, probably in excess of a decade, and the only thing that stuns me is that something can be quite so good without being broadly accepted.
I have always found the argument that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and for that matter, the enemy of the excellent.
By the way, I think the idea that thorium is superior to the uranium/plutonium cycle is way oversold. Thorium has many attractive properties, to be sure, but it also has some drawbacks when compared to uranium and thorium, most notably with respect to the U-232 problem.
Although I disagree with you, thanks for your comment.