Fed-Up-With-Fuel-Price-Whining asks:
"Why are people still looking toward the gasoline companies for fuel? Is it because gasoline in a combustion engine is the most efficient, or is it because oil companies buy off the efforts of other possiable fuels? Fuel cells are a much better and cleaner way to use the fuel and there are other fuels out there with MUCH better potential than gasoline. Why don't people stop their crying and answer the oil companies jacking up of prices by converting their cars to other fuels?" Good question. The problem for most of us, I think, is availability. You mention Arizona, USA but what about the other American states? If something like this could be done here in good ole Virginia, I'd happily switch, assuming there existed a decent number of places to refuel. Honestly, if this were to be a reality for the states, alternate fuel sources and the infrastructure to support them would have to evolve pretty much simultaneosly. What do you think?
"Here in Arizona it costs around $6000 to convert your car to natural gas. If you do it Arizona will PAY the $6000 to convert the car. If you buy more than $280.00 a year in gas you will not have to pay for taxes or registration of your car.
I don't know, it just seems like a MAJOR buy off by the oil companies, the gas stations, and politicians. I know for FACT in Brazil you are able to buy a car which burns gasoline or methonol. And the Gas Stations have BOTH gasoline and methanol pumps. The methanol cars are still combustion engines.
There is one problem I know of methanol based cars. They are more like diesel engines. They are hard to start in COLD weather. But if they were converted from combustion to fuel cell based they would be even more efficient and much cleaner burning."
Slashdot Mirror
I've been following CNG conversions for years.
My wife wanted a new SUV (flame her, not me), so I tried to find one supporting CNG.
Ford makes the Crown Vic and some commuter car... Honda has a commuter car too... no SUV.
Ford's Expedition uses the same engine as some Ford trucks that have fleet vehicle versions using CNG, but they won't do the Expedition.
No SUV's available.
So, I look for a retrofit (I'd rather not do a retrofit... it's like using non-Micro$oft programs atop a Micro$oft OS -- if something goes wrong, then both vendors point at each other as the fault).
The local fuel company, Questar, used to do CNG conversions, but they don't anymore: they say automobile manufacturers are doing enough ready-made vehicles that it's not necessary anymore. When I tell them "I can't get one", they say: it only makes economic sense for fleet vehicles anyway" ("but I'm not trying to make economic sense, I'm trying to pollute less" -- get's a blank stare from these hicks).
They (Questar) will install a CNG pump for your garage: plug you're vehicle in at night, it's got a full tank in the morning. It doesn't require special training (unlike normal CNG pumps where an attendant has to fill your tank) because it's a trickle feeder. You can buy the pump outright for a few thousand $$$'s or pay a monthly charge to the gas company).
Furthermore, the state (Utah) does give tax benefits to CNG vehicles, but only if you're a business, and only if the car was bought (or the conversion was performed) within the state.
So, I got my wife a Durango with the biggest engine (always get a more powerful engine when using CNG), on lease. When the lease is up, either I'll get a new SUV with CNG (if they are available by then), or I'll have this one converted.
Moral: Money is not the problem... it's currently impossible to get a CNG vehicle for personal use unless your willing to pick a few select cars or you want a business fleet.
Because I have testicles.
Certainly the fact that gasoline has a large installed base is part of the reason it is so prevalent. But the other part is that all the alternatives have their problems too. For example, diesel engines are more efficient than gas engines, which is one of the reason why there are lots of cars in Europe with turbo diesels. But diesels emit much more of certain types of pollutants (e.g., particulates) than gas engines. And the direct injection systems run at very, very high pressures (which means they can be difficult and expensive to repair). Also starting a diesel can be difficult once it gets below minus 10 degrees F. Natural gas is quite clean, but the big problem is that it has a much lower power density than gasoline and must be stored in a pressurized tank. So the irregularly shaped gasoline tank that can be hidden under the car has to be replaced by large cylinders that take up all of the trunk space. And even then, your range is greatly reduced. Natural gas simply isn't space efficient. It also takes longer to fill up your tank. Fuel cells? Yeah, right. Just as soon as someone can get the cost down below $50k per cell. Fuel cells are a promising technology, which is why the automakers are putting a lot of research into them. But no one has figured out how to produce them for a reasonable price yet. Yes, mass production will reduce prices. But the economics for these devices aren't the same as the economics for memory chips. With memory chips, the big cost is in the design and construction of the fab plant. Once it is up and running, the marginal cost of a chip is quite low. Not true for many mechanical devices.
All of these technologies for moving you down the street require energy. The generation of energy always generates pollutants (with the possible exceptionS of hydroelectric, wind, solar, and arguably, nuclear-generated electricity). Some of the energy is converted and pollution generated at the plant where the fuel source or energy is manufactured. Some, as well-exemplified by current ICE technology, is primarily generated in the vehicle itself.
Regardless of where the energy is used and converted and where and how the pollution is generated, the most important factor is HOW MUCH POLLUTION IS GENERATED FOR YOU TO GO DOWN THE STREET. One technology may offer excellent "fuel efficiency" but generate far more pollutants than another per unit of fuel. Another may generate NO pollutants in the vehicle, but a lot at the
plant where the fuel or electricity is generated. What matters at the end of the day, and the PRIMARY criteria that we should use to compare these technologies, is how POLLUTION EFFICIENT they are.
Of course, there are some other issues as well. For example, we may determine that Methanol is the most POLLUTION EFFICIENT vehicle-power method available, but realize that in order to generate enough Methanol, we'd have to turn the entire continent of North America into a gigantic corn farm. Obviously, this would negate the value of Methanol. Similarly, if we need to dam every river in the country to generate enough electricity to power our cars, causing a complete kill off of their entire ecosystems, we wouldn't do so.
So that's my 2 cents.
-- SuperBusTerror
In Italy there is a quite widespread use of GPL.
It's propane and butane gases mixed. It's cheap, safe and economic. Converting a car costs less than a 1000$, and you can still use normal gasoline.
You can find more informations here (italian only)
See? Now that is the trouble. A Caddy hits you and you end up getting your car totalled. The Caddy probably had minor scratches and a busted headlight. No thanks.. I'll keep my big car!
My ex-girlfriend's dad was a chemist who was developing pollution-reducing fuel additives that were significantly more efficient than the current stuff that is being used in many states. His lab was mysteriously sabotaged twice by some power(s) that didn't want this stuff to become available. So there are definitely other reasons besides lack of innovation that similar advances haven't come to light.
Gases like natural gas and propane are bulkier and much harder to handle than gasoline; they're also cleaner, but the hassle and danger of using them will keep them confined to niche markets.
Methanol and ethanol are a bit less energy-dense than gasoline, but as synthetic fuels they are more expensive (unless you live somewhere like Brazil where the raw materials are really cheap). Vegetable oil is also too expensive. When we run out of petrol, these fuels will probably take over from gasoline and deisel.
Hydrogen is the worst of both worlds. Completely synthetic, bulky even in cryogenic form, expensive, volatile, you name it. It makes a wonderful rocket fuel for heavy lift rockets.
Electric cars are great commuter vehicles. Unfortunately, since rechargable batteries have to carry their oxidizer with them, they are much less energy-dense than any liquid fuel. They will never have the range that a liquid-fuel vehicle can achieve; however, they may become highly superior for commuting in a few years.
Fuel cells are the holy grail for personal vehicles. They're the power plant of the future, and have been for decades. With as much trouble as they've had making it out of the lab, they will probably remain so for many decades to come.
Clean hybrid vehicles are probably the best we can hope for in the next 20 years. Small, constant-load gasoline or diesel engines are cleaner and more efficient than conventional car engines. Small, catalytic-combustion turbine-generators are more efficient yet, and much cleaner. You can probably expect 50-80MPG from them eventually, but they'll still run on liquid petroleum...
Small aircraft engines still use leaded gasoline because it is VERY expensive to certify a new engine, and the market has not yet been able to justify it.
Lycoming and Continental, the two major engine manufacturers, have provided methods to adapt some of their engines to use mogas (automobile gasoline), and some engine manufacturers are working to develop diesel engines.
It's hard to say which will come to market first:
Diesel engines
Turbines
Jets
Each of these is being researched and developed, but the certification process is so complex, it will be years before any are in mass production.
Here are the links:
l
Insight
http://www.honda2000.com/models/insight/intro.htm
Prius
http://prius.toyota.com/
I have a problem with your last statement. "'Protecting Jobs' is never a good argument for holding back a better technology." This is wonderful in theory, but if you stop to think about just how subjective the "benefits" of alternative fuel sources may just turn out to be, it doesn't seem like quite such a good idea to spend several trillion dollars in planning such a move, only to rudely disrupt a delicate balance, not unlike an ecosystem, which has developed between countries of the world when it comes to oil. And I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't feel the same if it were your job security that was in jeopardy! Especially if you have a family...but you can just find work elsewhere, assuming that the thousands of fellow co-workers who just lost their jobs don't get to those jobs before you. It seems quite clear to me that to head down a different course at this point is either going to take a national emergency,(for example there is suddenly no more oil) or it would have to take place very gradually and over a long period of time. The latter seems to be finding its beginnings even today. Suppose electricity became the preferred alternate energy source. Today's power grid would be hard tasked to handle even a 10% transition from drivers running fuel to switch to electric. I certainly don't think people want to see weeks of blackouts. And on top of that, I'd also bet money that there are a lot of oil drillers out there that don't possess the skills necesary to take a job at your local electric company. Well, so much for transitioning all of those unemployed workers. This is all hypothetical for the time being anyhow, but a clear and simple answer is just not at hand to allay the concerns and needs of all concerned parties, whether your concerns are the environment, families, countries, or just plain technical superiority.
how about the nice pulsating rumble of tuned gas engine.. The music of rev's.. The way a gas engine makes the car seem alive.. No electric car will do that. Fine, lets switch over to nitromethane.
It's thoughts like yours that continually support the repression of cannabis as a commodity. This isn't funny, there is a real solution to a fuel problem, and all you think about is Chech and Chong. Henry Ford's original car had plastic made from cannabis, it didn't smell, get you high, or look bad. He also planed to use cannabis as the fuel. It works.
Check out drivingthefuture.org Within the next 2 year there will be many pilot projects showcasing Fuel cell vehicles. The issues (barriers) revolving around a massive technology shift are numerous. In random order. Public Education: The technology shift from ICE's to Fuel cells will take a lot of persuasion. People will be concerned with Range(percieved), Safety etc. Infrastructure: Where will the fuel be made how will it be delivered, Centralized vs decentralized plants. cost Cost: All this new technology is expensive... Comes down to the chicken and the Egg... Without high volume manufacturing everything is too expensive. Without anyone to take the chance how does it get put in place... The government is doing it's part and some of the automanufactures...(damn capitalist society) In the near term look for electrolyzers in the garage to provide H2. stuartenergy.com Bureaucracy: Codes & Standards are a nightmare.. Everything is brand new and has to be defined or redefined for the transportation market.. Paranoia: The last thing big oil companies (oilies) want to see is a shift to a hydrogen economy. Look at how difficult it is to try to install your own alternative energy. Even though Electric companies are required to take you electricity. There are so many requirements to get the equipment installed at home, it is above the average users level of patience and money available. ie. Large power companies will by wind turbines, but god forbid you should put on on your property. some relevant sites. www.fuelcells.org drivingthefuture.org www.eren.doe.gov/newsletter/subscribe/ http://fcv.ucdavis.edu/fcvnews/
It probably wouldn't be a standard size/capacity/shape between car manufacturers. It'd be like trying to offer a central place to replace everybody's cel phone battery.
I bet, Japan will be the place you see more fuel cell / bybrid first, then Europe, then North America. Not to be soon.
And America will be a very distant third. Nobody in the US wants to drive fuel-efficient cars, they want to drive hideously oversized SUV's. Until those things can run on electricy, roar a loud, obnoxious engine, and take up more space than two normal vehicles, nobody will give up their SUV's.
Oh, please. You can't tell me the reason SUV's are popular is because they're useful utility vehicles. I commute 15 miles to work every day, and I always see at least 20 massive SUV's with exactly one person in them, a middle aged guy in a suit, usually talking on a cel phone. I assure you, that man's SUV will never see a spot of road that isn't paved or outside the metropolitan area. And it certainly won't be hauling drywall or bathtubs any time soon, as Ford would like you to believe.
And it always cracks me up to see a Ford Excursion parked on the side of the road downtown, taking up two parking spots. I'm just glad they don't fit in the parking garages.
Right now it is less expensive to use gasoline than fuel cells. However, the automakers are all working on bringing the cost of fuel cells down and I'd guess in 10-15 years that we'll be using them. Maybe sooner but let's not go crazy. At that point we'll have pollution free cars and the enviros will have to find another reason to try to stop us from using them. :-) I have no doubt that they will.
Despite the recent price shock due to the action of the OPEC producer cartel, oil prices have been on a steady decline in real terms for some time. There is no danger of running out of oil. Proven reserves will last decades, there's tons more to be discovered, and by the time we run low, oil will basically be superseded by other technologies.
I see as major uses of oil:
-- Gasoline
-- Diesel fuel
-- Jet fuel
-- Home heating oil
-- Solvents and lubricants
-- Plastics
With limited exceptions there are substitutes for all of these that will be commercially viable and cost effective within the next 25 years.
-- Gasoline replaced by fuel cells
-- Home heating oil replaced by electricity from coal or nuclear
-- Solvents, lubricants, and plastics from synthetics or alternative renewable sources such as soyabean oil.
Even diesel (for trucks and heavy equipment) might be replaced by fuel cells in some applications. Ballard Power Systems and the Chicago Transit Authority ran some experiments with fuel cell buses. The cost is $9 million per, so obviously we're a ways off from mass acceptance.
Anybody know a substitute for jet fuel?
Despite advances in fuel-cell technology, pure electric doesn't cut it in Canada's climate. We need what is know as hybrid electric vehicles. These use a storage technology or cheap generation technology for electricity, say a flywheel or fuel-cell, plus a small gasoline engine for getting up hills or recharging the storage technology if there are no plug-ins avalable. There used to be a thriving electric car community in Ottawa, Canada's capital, based around our National Research Council. I hope it still exists...
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
My friend who saw me using unleaded shreiked at me, something about my valve guides not being brass and that I needed to add lead to keep from burning out my valve guides.
In theory your friend is right. In practice most cars ran just fine on unleaded. The ones that had problems were driven hard. Baby the engine and it often did just fine. Of course eventially you had to rebuild the engine and replace the valve seals, but in practice those engines were not designed to todays tolerances and so they wouldn't have gone as many miles before the next rebuild anyway.
You distill, say, corn to make corn whiskey, or in this case, ethanol. (all that alcohol has to come from somewhere!)
:)
In Russia, they make vodka from potatoes. And I bet you can run your car off of the fumes...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
If you don't like it, go build a still.
That's what people did when I was in the mountains. It's cost-effective, too, provided that vegetable matter stays cheaper than gas...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I know there was a guy (name escapes me) who was working on a water powered car. Basically he had developed a method of cracking water using very little power. He received multiple death threats from major oil powers until he eventually gave them the rights to the technology.
This, to me, seems to be the major problem. The rich oil countries in the Middle East just don't want to stop being rich, and will do everything they can to ensure that nothing comes between them and their money.
Money seems more important to them than the state of the planet. Water powered cars would have been efficient and very very clean (H2 burning off to become water, which is cracked to give H2, which is burned to give water....).
The same problem occurs with other fuels and other new technologies that come along to replace oil. I'm sure once all the oil is used up that we will then be free to use what we want in our cars, including nice cheap (free?) water.
T.
This is rocket science.
None of this technology will EVER see the inside of a mass-produced car's engine compartment. Not one bolt. It's not profitable for the manufacturer, it ain't gonna happen. Cry all you want.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
shit daddy! That must be it!
And, of course, because the idiot paid like $60k for a tiny micro subcompact, their attitude is: "I paid a buttload of money, and I'm going to make it up in gas savings, I'll be damnned if I drive this thing to get 50 mpg!!"
This does not bode well for the future.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Have you ever been "stuck" behind one of these 80+ MPG cars on the highway?
I was on a road trip up to San Francisco on HWY 101, we were all breezing along at a leisurely 85 MPH, when all of a sudden, everyone was tapping their brakes. The problem was, a long line of Semi-trucks were slowly threading their way, one by one, in the left lane, past this little Honda hybrid, maxxed out at 50.
The good Lord only gave me so many seconds of life on this world. I don't want to spend them in transit, waiting behind slow cars.
When fuel cells or electrics produce cars that are PRACTICAL, then we'll see it. Otherwise, Gasoline is the only viable alternative right now. Yes, the seven sisters (oligopoly of Oil companies) have done their best to buy off any alternatives, especially including mass transit - and their distribution network is unbreakable. It's sad really. Electric is probably the only technology that's going to compete because it has a comparable distribution network (anyone's home is a potential filling station). But for now, electrics' performance, range, cost, and negative environmental impact are all inferior to gas.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Actually, it's not cheaper. Gas prices in the U.S. are kept artificially low. Look at the prices in Europe; they are about 4x more.
Fialar
When my state (NJ) de-regulated the power companies, I immediately signed up for Green Mountain. They generate their electricity through Solar, Wind, and Hydroelectric.
Granted, I am still waiting for my signature form because they require a signature in order to switch you over.
People need to cut their consumption down, but the problem is that in the United States, everything is so far apart and we don't have a very good public transportation system. If I lived close enough to ride my bike to work or could take a bus or train, I definitely would do it!
Sport Utility Vehicles, on the other hand, should be kept to the same pollution restrictions as cars. I think that they are contributing all too much to the pollution problem. I was kind of hoping the rise in gas prices would deter people from buying these behemoths. :(
Fialar
Not being from around here, I don't know all the facts. I'm sure somebody told me the other day that all the taxis in Toronto are running off methanol (or at least something other than petrol). I've been here when the temps have been at -40, and I'm sure there were still taxis on the streets.
>In response to the poorly numbered 7 comments:
Oops, next time I'll use bullets. In response to a poorly formatted post: Please take a composition class. There is a reason that paragraphs were invented.
>Uranium 235 has a drastically higher energy density,
> we don't use it for the same reason why we
> shouldn't use gasoline, enviromental damage.
True uranium has a higer energy density, but that's not why we don't use it because actually we do use it. See scale factors for the powerplant below. Besides, I said "almost".
>What is the TRUE size of a gasoline engine of
> say 3.0L and all the stuff needed to run it?
What is relevant is it's RELATIVE size compared to competing technology. The point is, it's smaller, lighter, less complex, etc.
> Do you happen to know the cost of an oil well
> and refinery?
Yes, I do. The cost of those installations is reflected in the cost of the gasoline.
>It isn't fair to compare the two.
Certainly it is fair. They are competing technologies and competition is by definition a comparison.
Now for the good part.
> the real difference comes from the fact that a
> car's engine is designed to opperate over a
> wide range of speeds so it obtains a pittifully
> low single digit% efficiency. In a power plant,
> the engine is designed to run at maximum
> efficiency, at a set speed. This gets it
> around 30-40%.
Ah, some real insight, but some parts have been overlooked. The CAR has to operate over a wide range of speeds. The powerplant has to produce power levels that vary widely. They are not the same thing. Even gasoline+air+IC engines cannot "natively" produce the combination of power and drive interface to the road. So, we have transmissions. In the case of cars, the cost in resources, weight, and volume of the transmission is effectively absorbed into the cost of the powerplant. This is one area where electricity+motors have a serious advantage. They don't have to pay for or carry around a transmission!
Already we see the effects of these two in new cars that are being built today. They are hybrids. There is a relatively small gasoline+air+IC engine that is supposed to make cruising power, at constant speed, and charge or maintain the batteries. There are motors that drive the wheels using the energy stored in the batteries for accelleration. Fundamentally, the generator+batteries+motors replace and form a better(more efficient) transmission. This allows the size of the gasoline+air component of the power plant to be reduced. If/when the reduction in size and complexity and or the increase in efficientcy of the IC power plant outweighs the added cost/size of the new and more efficient transmission, then we have a gain and a viable design change. With some work, a decent balance between gas tank size, gas engine size, and battery size can be worked out so that the end performance of the car can be improved relative to the gasoline+air+IC+mechanical transmission type.
Of course, this is why we see this type of car in the market today. Enough work has been invested in the technology to make it competitive.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
It's legit. It's just that these cars are nowhere near the type of cars that are on the market today. They don't have doors. They have thin, lightweight, rickety frames with bicycle seats. No air conditioning, no heat, little or no ventilation! They have poor maneuverability and poor visibility.
They have one design goal and that is MPG. It is often reasonable to boost the performance of one feature of a design by an order of magnitude or more when all others can be neglected.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
>I know for a fact that many many times in the
:) and then smothered
> twentieth century, there have been inventors who
> came up with carburetor designs that enabled ANY
>vehicle to get 300 miles to the gallon or even
> more.
Sure you do. It's too bad that you can't document it or even do the math that would show that a gasoline powered car that weighs 4000 pounds and is driven in normal day-to-day fashion can get 300MPG.
> My dad knew one such person personally.
Actually he didn't. Either he is a fraud, the claimed inventor is a fraud, or you are a fraud.
> He invented a 300MPG carb, tried to market it,
> and instantly got bought out by Ford,
Well, that sounds like he was successful in marketing it.
> I think it was. They bought his design for >$50,000 (this was in the 50's, when 50 grand was
> actually worth something
> it. Nobody heard of it again.
Perhaps because it didn't work? Why would Ford smother it? It would allow them to kick all the other car makers butts! Just because Ford bought it, doesn't mean it has to disappear. Did Ford patent it? If so, the patent has expired and the design is free and exposed to the public. If not, then the inventor is free to do so himself. If Ford tries to sue him for breach of contract, the design will be exposed and available to the public either way. Why not? The conspiracy is defeated either way.
Like I said, do the math. Find out how much energy(zero point or other) is required to push, pull, or whatever 4000 pounds around in day-to-day driving and then do the chemistry and find out how much energy is available in a gallon of gas and then do the engineering to figure out how much is lost through hot exhaust, internal friction, transmission drag, air drag, etc. and see what is left. Rememeber, that in order to make a 300MPG carb, you can't fiddle with anything else, all you can do is pull the carb and replace it. All it can do is mix the fuel and air, better, and somehow gain a > 10 fold increase in power output per gallon of gas. It also has to be able to do this with out blowing up the engine that was not expecting to get so much power out of each cylinder full of gasoline and air.
>It is possible to take damn near any
> existing electrical motor, add a few parts, and
> turn it into a generator that runs itself
> without any fuel. You just give it a spin
> and it runs forever.
Bullshit. You know why I say this? Because no one
has done it. Do it yourself! You have the plans right there on that web page.
> But guess what happens when someone tries to
> patent such a device?
Why bother? Just do it. Show it to your friends.
Build one and replace your ceiling fan. Build another and attach it to your bicycle. Who cares about some conspiracy anyway? All you really want to do is reduce your electric and fuel bills so that you won't be under the heel of Big Business anymore.
Eventually, you will talk; you will demonstrate; people will notice; and the conspiracy will be defeated.
Of course, in reality, if this stuff really worked, the power companies would already be using it to generate electricity without having to pay for fuel oil or gas and thus their profits would be enormous.
>What would happen if everyone alive knew they
> could get a generator the size of a small desk,
> put it in their garage, and cut the power lines
> to their house, and never have to buy fuel or
> pay for electricity ever again?
>
> Why, it would destroy Exxon, Texaco, Shell, and
> all of OPEC just about overnight.
Actually it wouldn't do any such thing. See, already YOU know this and nothing has happened to any of the oil companies. Everyone that has read your stuff and believes you knows this and nothing has happened. If it was actually true, what would happen is this: The oil companies would sell some their refineries for scrap(because some oil products would still be needed) and build factories for making these knew fangled generators. Tada! The capital investment that was once a refinery(AKA gasoline factory) is converted into a different kind of factory.
> Can't have that. It's financial evolution:
>"Survival of the richest."
Count me in. I own stock in several "energy companies". That is the ultimate way to defeat any "big business conspiracy". Buy the stock! Become a part of Big Business. That way, you win big while they are trying to screw you.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
As has been pointed out, the biggest obstacle seems to be in the area of infrastructure. My main short-distance vehical runs off a mixture of complex carbohydates, fats, simple and complex sugars, and various malted beverages :-). I made the decision to live in somewhat of a hovel to facilitate having a bikeable distance to work. Plus, I had to wait for the showers to be built (at the request of co-workers :-) ).
The point is that every ride is a battle with really nasty, aggressive drivers. I end up cursing, yelling and making rude gestures just to keep from ending up being fertilizer on my way to work. Sure I could take some of the bike routes, if I wanted to add an extra 30% to my commuting time and distance.
The problem is that cars (and more specifically gasoline powered cars) are king of the road in the U.S. And I seriously doubt that the powerful automobile and even more powerful oil lobbies want to see the car's regal status altered any time soon.
Disclaimer: my recent header has forced me to go back to a less efficient means of transport until my shoulder heals (any day now).
The real silver bullet to good programs is caffeine; lots and lots of caffeine! *twitch, twitch*
The other method of commuting into NYC from Connecticut is via car on I-95. Do you realize that I-95 is subsidized on the order of _100%_ by the state and federal government? You don't pay tolls, do you? That's why mass transit is also subsidized, since it's a public transportation service just like Metro North. Also, Metro North provides a valuable service by reducing congestion on I-95 by making mass transit a feasible alternative to driving into the city.
Like the original poster said, driving 30 miles each way to work is a lifestyle choice, so I don't have much sympathy for those who complain about traffic, gas prices, etc.
-Dean
Actually, there are 40,000 auto-deaths per year and only 20,000 homocides. You're _much_ more likely to die because of your driving habits living in the suburbs than you are likely to be a murder victim. So the suburbanites are really playing a fool's game... they _think_ they're safer, but they're really putting themselves at even greater risk by driving and living in pedestrian-unfriendly environments.
-Dean
They cost more?
They do not perform as well?
Where are this magical 80+MPG cars? If they worked they would be sold, It is that simple.
My Porsche 911 would use so much power that I'd have to refill a fuel cell every 20 minutes! I'de rather pay $3.00/gallon and be able to go 180mph in my Porsche than be limited to 90mph (not that I do go over 115 that often [if you are a police officer, I only go 5 under the speed limit]).
My ex-roommate has a 4WD '76 Ford Bronco that he takes off-roading when going camping/caving. It gets like 12mpg, but is built like a tank. After reading, among other things, The Clock of the Long Now, about a group of people who started a non-profit foundation to build a giant clock out in the desert designed to last 1000 (!) years, I got to thinking about making my next car purchase something that could long outlast the 180,000 mile mark you mentioned. At the time, I was driving a '96 Saturn SL1, a great car, but a perfect specimen of the "disposable car" phenomenon that you point out.
I ended up buying a used '97 BMW 328i last February. Sure, it cost twice as much used (excuse me, "pre-owned", which means it came with a kick-ass 100k mile warranty) as my Saturn did new, but I think it was well worth it. Here in L.A. I regularly see 15-year old Bimmers in excellent condition on the road. Plus they go something like 9000+ miles between oil changes, and there's a little LED strip on the instrument panel that counts down from 5 bars to let you know when it's time for service, using a customized estimate based on your gas consumption. What geek couldn't appreciate that? :-)
On the downside, when you do go to change the oil, you need a special "reset tool" to reset the indicator lights. This is designed to discourage Joe Luser (or the guys at the Jiffy Lube) from doing oil changes without doing all the proper BMW-sanctioned things. You may think this is lame, but considering that I read in Consumer Reports that they found that quick-lube places have a nasty tendency to put the wrong grade of oil in about 50% of the time, I don't blame them. Brand-new, a reset tool costs $100, but I've seen them on eBay for $20.
Better quit now before I get too far off-topic, but I hope you'll agree that this is the sort of stuff that matters to a potential car buyer much more than mere mpg.
--
Jake
Stop whining. Take the bus. In addition to saving a couple of bucks, it'll help prevent your kids from getting skin cancer.
</i>
In any cities I've been to or lived in the bus does not save money over a given trip in comparision to the cost of gas to fuel a car for the same number of trips. Busses are not all that cost effective of a means of transportation. Factor in time wasted that would otherwise be your free time waiting for the bus, transfers and so on its a big money loser including the payments on a cheap new vehicle.
Cities with mass transport such as subways are often a better deal than owning a car, but I've never seen the bus win on cost of ownership.
I've heard such things as this and am curious about it. Can you provide references?
Wil
--
Wil
wiki
A friend of mine from high-school has written a book on "bio-diesel" and has toured around for quite some time promoting the idea of recycling used cooking oils. He was being sponsored by a major fast-food chain which provided him with free spent oils where ever he went. (According to my father, who used to own a small fast-food restaurant a couple of decades ago, this used grease is often sold to cosmetics companies, so it wasn't exactly like they were giving him something for nothing.)
You can find more out about it by visiting his site http://veggievan.org.
Wil
--
Wil
wiki
Solar panels are a possible solution, but lots of cars end up in parking garages(especially in the larger cities where space is a premium). As such, solar panels won't help much.
If you think 50-60 miles round trip is a lot, then you're problably living in a small city. When I lived in Corpus Christi(south Texas) I would balk at the idea of driving 30 miles(round trip) to go do something. Now that I live in Houston, a 60 mile(round trip) is a routine occurance. Of course it helps that we now have a 70MPH speed limit in Texas :)
http://www.zeropollution.com/zeropollution/index.h tml
Maybe there is one thing good that's come out of France.
Water is a LOT cheaper than gasoline, milk is about half as expensive, and even soft drinks and beer are cheaper per gallon. Go figure.
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
no, LPG is LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS
ref from Wipo
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite free!
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
propane is heavier than normal air, so instead of going into the air in case of accident, it goes on the ground, and in town, it can be dangerous
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite free!
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
I'm not sure if it's been posted yet but this is a great article I read a while back in Wired.
Dawn of the Hydrogen Age
http://www.wired.com/wired/ar chive/5.10/hydrogen.html
"The difference between genius and stupid is that genius has its limits." -- Unknown
Hybrid cars don't have to be slow. Chrysler developed a race car called the Patriot that used a high-output alternator and a carbon-fiber flywheel, spun up by a turbine to drive a 600hp electric motor which transmited power via a manual 6spd transmission. The car reclaimed braking energy, putting it back into the flywheel, and had a terminal velocity of over 200mph. It also had a range of over 1500miles. Wired had an article on the car early in the mag's run.. just searched and found this: Patriot
> Cheap?! You call $1.50 one-way "cheap"? IIRC, it's
> the most expensive mass transit system in the
> world. And it still has to be subsidized.
I call it damn cheap. When I was using the DC metro (a very nice, clean, fast metro system, btw, if a bit overloaded at times) it was $3.50 one way. For public trans, that's really high, but it's still not bad when you compare it to gas, parking, etc. Add to that that I could sit & read a novel on my way to work, it was wonderful.
Now I'm using the Baltimore subway, which is rather poorly organized (one (slow) subway line, and some light rail, even slower -- basicaly an electric bus). But by choosing where I moved I was able to get a very nice comute for $1.35 (one way).
As far as SUV's, well, SUV's are evil. I was comuting by car for a while, and I'd guess that half of the vehicles on I95 durring rush hour were SUV's. Nice SUV's, that had clearly never seen so much as a gravel road. Now, back where I grew up (SW Oregon) there are mountains, trees, etc.. I can see where some people would find an SUV useful there. But the area here is in the middle of a city, there are no mountains to speak of (not like Oregon, anyway), very little bad weather (precipitation-wise), nowhere I've seen that would need an SUV. But these a*holes think they're hot sh*t if they drive an SUV. It really pisses me off.
But enough ranting.
cause it smells good, huh huh
I don't think you're being excessively argumentative at all. You bring up some very good points and bring to light my ignorance about the airline industry. I based my comments on the conclusions of a Ga Tech researcher who studies pollution in Atlanta; he indicated to me that heavy industry (like GA Power) and Hartsfield were both huge polluters. But I should have known I was speaking too soon in my implication that there are 30-year-old engines flying around in aerospace.
I drive I-75 every day and I feel your pain. Atlanta's poor city planning, poor public transit (several reasons for that), unrestricted residentail development, and skyrocketing real estate have turned it into traffic hell. If not for my job and my family, the traffic alone would make me leave!
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Thank you for the clarification. I do think that it's good to place blame where blame is due. Yes, cars pollute. But picking on cars is kind of silly when heavy industry and the airline industry are much more egregious polluters than are people driving automobiles. Why, then, are you choosing to pick on cars?
Is it because you dislike the idea of people being able to drive their cars whenever and wherever they please, rather than being relegated to public transportation which is government-controlled? I believe that lots of people feel this way: ultimately, they just plain hate the idea of individualism. If that is the case with you, then I wish you would just forget this nonsense about pollution (which really wouldn't be the issue) and say, "Cars are bad becuase they help encourage individualism."
But if that isn't it, then I'm interested to know what your answer is. (That's not sarcastic, I really am curious.)
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Answer me this question: for each gallon of gas that you pay for, what percentage of it goes towards profit for the companies, and what percentage goes of it to the government (who did nothing in terms of refining, transporting, or marketing of the product)? The answer to this question will probably give you a better idea of whose pockets are being lined with cash.
Furthermore check out this link to find out who is really responsible for the hike in gas prices. Hint: it's not the oil companies.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
First of all, your subject:
Screw the old, roads, and health!
This is so typical of the liberal mindset these days. If I don't agree with the liberal philosophy, then I must hate the old, the poor, and the children. This sentiment is echoed in your subject: "Screw the old...." I'll chalk this up as a hollow accusation of "hate speech," which is just an attempt to discredit me without having to address what I say.
Mr. Government's pocket is being lined with cash? Who is this elusive government that takes your money just because it can!
I'm assuming you are an American. If not, then parts of this reply might not apply to you. Are you aware of our tax system? Do you not realize that the government gets fifty cents of profit on every gallon of gasoline whereas the oil company gets thirteen? Furthermore, what did the government do to earn those fifty cents? NOTHING! They just take it. And why in the hell are you pretending that the government is "elusive"? The government is bigger than ever, my friend. Tell me, how many federal programs has Clinton proposed or enacted compared to the number of federal programs that he has dissolved?
Hmm, could it be that the government, in fact, spends this money on getting things done??
This is downright stupid. Are you implying that you think that the government is the only group in the world that is "getting things done" whereas everyone else is doing nothing?
Could it be that the government actually gives this money BACK to the people, serving as a kind of redistribution organization?
You hit the nail on the head with this one. The government is, in fact, mostly a huge income redistribution engine. It was Voltaire who stated, "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." I'm now going to ask you a question that no liberal has been able to answer for me (yet): How is it fair that the government uses force to take money from one person who earned it and gives that money to another person who didn't earn it?
Could the government be doing things like building roads, keeping the elderly alive, and
helping people who have little money get health care?
Building roads is a valid function of government. "[K]eeping the elderly alive" and "helping people who have little money [to] get health care" are not. Tell me, where in the constitution is health care outlined as a right? And, tell me, if someone receives health care "from" the government, who is paying for that health care?
Apparently, you seem to think that congressmen are motivated financially to tax us. They're power hungry, not money-grubbing.
Taxing the high wage earners is a means to an end. Tell me, what percentage of the income tax is being paid by the top 50% of wage earners? And what percentage is being paid by the bottom 50% of wage earners? If you need help, you can check out this link.
Most congressmen are already incredible rich, anyway. But, lets assume you're right. The government takes in say $5,000 a year from the average person, this times 250,000,000 people or so is $1,250,000,000,000. So lets divvy this up, shall we? This means that every year, we have approximately $2,000,000,000 for each congressman. Not bad, eh? And all this from making our gas prices high! Damn those bastards!
You have beat up a strawman. Now, do you think you can answer my questions?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
"cars pollute"
It's all relative, right? Yes, cars pollute, but not very much anymore. That's what a catylitic converter is for. In my city (Atlanta) most of the pollution comes from heavy industry like Georgia Power (which brags about the fact that it has 100+-year-old factories still in use) and Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. Think about that -- the cars of today release a fraction of the emissions that the cars of the 1970's did. The airplanes of today are the airplanes of the 1970's, in many cases.
I think people need to own up to the truth that at least part of the reason they hate cars is that they hate individualism.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The US government and the Big 2.5 (Ford, General Motors, and the German subsidiary formerly known as Chrysler) have been collaborating on something called PNGV, the Partnership for the Next Generation of Vehicles (or something like that). The goal is for all three companies to eventually develop production cars that can acheive 80MPG, while matching the performance and capabilities of existing popular cars. The baseline models were, IIRC, Ford Taurus, Chevy Lumina, and Chrysler Concorde.
Check out this page on DaimlerChrysler's Dodge ESX3 concept. It's the third generation of their PNGV concept, which has typically previewed the next generation Dodge Intrepid. The first ESX was introduced in 1996. It would have retailed for about US$80,000, 4x the cost of an Intrepid. The '98 ESX2 lowered the price to about $US35,000, and the new ESX3 lowers it even more, to about US$27,500. Not unreasonable compared to the market in general, but that's still around US$7,000 more than a typical 2000 Intrepid.
Collectively, we Americans will not pay significantly more for environment-friendly options on our cars, unless there's a real fuel crisis to force us to. Nor will we sacrifice power for efficiency. Hybrids like Honda Insight or Toyota Prius are sold at a loss, in the hopes that they'll make enough inroads to justify future development. They make good city cars, but we won't buy city cars if we think we'll ever need to pull on to a freeway. We want to have our cake and eat it too.
Every day we're standing in a wind tunnel
Facing down the future coming fast - Rush
This sig intentionally left blank.
To me, the coolest alternative idea is biodiesel from recycled cooking oil. You pull up to the drive thru and along with your Big Mac and fries, you top off the car! McDiesel!!
Check out http://www.veggievan.org/ for more.
Many states are already using an 80/20 mix of No. 2 diesel and biodiesel to reduce emissions.
Not all bugs are 38. the peak of HP was 60, but that was only for a few later years.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
It's riders like you that make life tough for the
rest of us riders. Obnoxious bike riders that piss off motorists by ignoring red lights etc. make the cagers a lot less sympathetic to all of the other riders out there. They never notice the folks on bikes that wait at red lights, just the scofflaws like yourself.
Out here in the Bay Area we have a bunch of Critical Massholes that think that they can get people to like bicyclists better by screwing up commute traffic once a month.
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
Here in the US, natural gas makes sense. We've got loads of supplies (we're the Saudi Arabia of the natural gas world). It's cheap. It's very clean burning. Why don't we use it? No infrastructure.
A modest proposal: convert all civic vehicles to natural gas. This is already being done in many cities. However, we also need to require the motor pools for these cities to remove their filling stations. Make the civic vehicles fill up their cars at ordinary gas stations. As such, you will create a demand for gas stations that carry natural gas. Then, the early adopters can switch their vehicles to natural gas. Finally, Detroit will start making natural gas cars.
Once that happens, people will buy them. Even though there's a slight increase in danger with natural gas (estimates range from 30 to 150 additional deaths per year due to explosions from natural gas tanks), natural gas is cheaper and cleaner. The US can nationalize its fossil fuel consumption, removing our dependence on foreign oil. We could then tax the shit out of old gasoline (petrol for you non-US folk), using the tax revenues to invest into alternative fuel research.
Problems? Natural gas is very difficult to transport. Pipelines can't move gas--you have to liquify the stuff by putting it under immense pressure. That will cost the oil companies a lot of money. However, they should be happy to return energy production to the US. US is considered a low risk area for energy production--there's little risk the US government will be overthrown, with the new government nationalizing assets. Seems to me that the trade off would be very appealing for many companies.
--Be human.
OK, I didn't think that was the case; otherwise the environmentalists would be having two cows and a goat about it (as well they should).
Essentially, it all boils down to economics and infrastructure. For any fuel to replace gasoline, you'd have to build an entire new distribution system, essentially replacing every gas station in the country.
Methanol: Poor energy density and even more poisonous than gasoline, plus it mixes with water, making cleanup of spills *much* more difficult. Also, correct me if I'm wrong about this, but wouldn't it necessitate a hell of a lot of logging? Is that methanol they're burning in Brazil coming from the rainforests?
Ethanol: I've heard it claimed that the push for ethanol is coming from Archer-Daniels-Midland and nobody else. Dunno if I believe that, but it would certainly require a lot of land to produce enough grain to meet current demand. I think its energy density is even lower than that of methanol's.
Natural gas: Clean-burning, but hard to store and transport (and energy density is *really low; it *is* a gas, after all). And, it's still a fossil fuel.
Conventional electric cars: The battery technology just isn't there, and I don't think there's much of anything on the horizon, either. The idea of battery exchanges has been floated many times, but think about it: There would have to be an incredible amount of standardization in order for it to work at all: only one or two form factors to cover every size of car and truck. Also, the battery-exchange stations would have to maintain an enormous inventory in order to have charged batteries available at all times. Since the energy density of batteries is *much* less than that of gasoline, the inventory would take up much more space than the underground tanks of a gas station, and be much more expensive to build and maintain.
Hybrid electrics: I think these are the best short-term bet. I sat in a friend's Honda hybrid recently, and was quite impressed. It, however, amounts to a conventional drivetrain with a very small engine and an electric-motor assist, and i think the Toyota hybrid works the same way. I think of hybrids as basically being electric cars with a small engine keeping the batteries charged. I'm surprised nobody seems to be working on a gas-turbine hybrid; properly designed, you'd eliminate the part-throttle inefficiency and narrow power band problems that make turbines otherwise a poor choice for automotive propulsion. Problem is, I think people are reluctant to sink a lot of R&D money into these, because they're waiting for...
Fuel cells: Probably the best long-term bet. The biggest problem is the storage and distribution of hydrogen. There has been some progress in on-board refinement of H2 from methanol, but that has all of the same problems methanol has, and negates the big advantage of fuel cells, that being a complete lack of emissions.
What is an OAP???
Nobody cares. Let's push all problems to our next generations.
In 5 years gas will be $5/gallon, in 25 years it will be $50 per gallon. Let our kids to pay, we don't care!
Andrew
It's fast, it's easy, it's cheaper than hell and there's no traffic.
If you want to take up space on the freeway with your SUV (with no passengers, usually), dump some carbon-dioxide into the air and suck up some unreplenishable fuel sources, then shut up and pay your $2.00 per gallon.
---
seumas.com
Hydrogen is the best solution if you can split water using clean source then you you have almost pollution free solution
I remember a hubub around my area a few years ago about Gas/jet turbine hybrids. A local company was really getting spiffy about taking the newest Saturn cars, ripping out the Engines and dropping in a small peetrolium powered jet turbine that in turn ran a generator for an electric motor. Reported something like 100 MPG but was really, really loud.
:)
Still they said they could do a conversion on a Saturn for about 5k USD. If tey could Lick the sound problem, It wouldn't be too bad..
But then again, you'd have to be a rocket scientist (literally) to fix the damn thing
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
How is it that if you raise my tax rates by 5% instead of 10%, you've given me a tax cut? How is a lower tax rate on gas a subsidy?
It makes me wonder if the Automobile industry is in on it in some way. Any time that they make an alternative fuel vehicle, its about the ugliest "soccer-mom" vehicle ever... Its as if they are trying to make it undesirable to purchase an alternative fuel vehicle.
I wouldn't be caught dead in one of those GM electric vehicles... I know that the electric cars need to be small and light, but why can't they make them look like an MR2 or RX7? Why does it have to look like an UGLY Ford Festiva or Chevy Metro? Bah!
Gary Franczyk
You talk a lot about choice. Not everyone was born in a city. Where I live, and where I was born, there is no mass transit. There are no busses or trains.
Also, people in the country live in houses, not apartments.
You talk a lot about moving. Some of us have never moved. We do not accept membership into a community; we are the community.
-- Thrakkerzog
Several car makers including Toyota and Honda have
released hybrid gas-electric cars. They are available in the US and they are not too expensive.
It is not the best choice but it is a step in the
right direction.
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
here is a website that is all about a very interesting alternate fuel source www.powerball.net
YOU CAN'T FIX STOOOPID
-+Bob
GM has an electric car on the market (or used to. However, at $30k, it was way too expensive. Also, it was small. I've only seen recharging stations for such cars in California (and then, only at one place in San Jose).
I wouldn't buy an electric car these days. An infrastructure doesn't exist, nor are they priced properly (when I can get a midsized sedan for $20k, I'll reconsider).
Chris
Fuel Cells still cost to much to produce. Even with high petrol prices it is still cheaper to use internal combustion engines than to produce fuel cells. If/when fuel cells get cheaper to produce than we will see them enter mainstream useage. Cheap trumps efficient every time.
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
1) you can buy cars that burn either gasoline or ethanol. Go to www.ford.com and check out flex-fuel vehicles. I believe you can buy a small or 3/4 ton full size pickup, a Taurus, an Econoline van, maybe others. Many are available in Natural Gas versions from the factory too, and at least in Southwest Michigan, there are natural gas filling stations, probably enough that many people could use them for their commute.
2) According to friends in the electric car business, fuel cells are still not practical for cars because they are easily poisoned by certain gasses. Sulfur dioxide is one, I believe. This means you drive by a dirty coal plant, your fuel cell is toast, and you have a $10,000 repair bill.
3)Natural gas has a much lower energy density than gasoline. You can only get about 130 miles of range out of a tank, when a tank of gasoline of the same size might get you 400 miles. This is not because it's less efficient, it's because you can't put as much CNG in as you can gasoline. Less BTU's per cubic foot.
The reason we still use gas? Because people don't want to change.
Personally I wish the price of gas would go even higher. People need to get kicked in the head to stop the crazy SUV and musclecar driving stupidity that they're into now. I have no sympathy for someone that bought a Ford Excursion, uses it for nothing but 80 mile single-person commutes, and is paying $2.30 a gallon (I know several, I'm sure many of you do too). Hearing them squeal made it well worth paying the same myself.
I'll be the first in line to buy a practical fuel cell vehicle. I'll probably buy a Honda hybrid car if I have to replace a car in the next couple of years. I have always bought Ford in the past (I get a discount through family), but I've written them letters saying that they've sold me their last car that didn't get at least 50 miles per gallon. I want a high efficiency diesel-electric hybrid. Ford has a prototype Taurus that goes 100 MPH and gets 80+ MPG.
Driving gas vehicles, especially gas guzzlers, is idiotic, and idiotic behavior should have a down side. It SHOULD hurt to fill that tank. After 6 weeks of bellyaching, I finally heard on the radio last night "High cost of fuel is renewing interest in more fuel efficient vehicles." DUUUUH!
I thought the same thing at first. Electric vehicles are just putting the power through more inefficient stages, so how could it be better, in the end?
The answer: power plants are held to a much higher standard for pollution. They don't have to be portable, so they can install much better scrubbers. They put out less pollution per final joule delivered to your wheels than having a gas engine hooked to the wheels does.
You want to really reduce pollution? Slap some emissions restraints on recreational engines. One hour on a Jet-Ski puts out more pollution than driving a new car for 100,000 miles.
Don't even get me started about lawn mowers.
Very good points. I really should think about what I hear on the radio before repeating it, huh?
It's been a long time since I heard these statements. Too bad, I would have liked to have heard their explanations for this arguement.
There is one problem I know of methanol based cars. They are more like diesel engines. They are hard to start in COLD weather.
Not to mention the fact that some of the rubber compounds (like the butyl rubbers) found in older engines, used in areas like the fuel lines and the carburetor/fuel injectors, just fall apart when exposed to chemicals like methanol or even ethanol. Not a good thing to get a piece of rubber stuck in your fuel injector lines while cruising down the highway; that has a tendency to throw you off your pace! This is one of the main reasons that methanol isn't used in areas like aviation fuel.
Hot weather also has a tendency to mess up ethanol-based fuels. Every fuel has what's called a "reed vapor pressure", which basically measures when a fuel will produce vapors. Ethanol's RVP is higher than gasoline's, so that it'll form vapors more readily. On a hot day, these vapors can actually form a bubble inside the carburetor/fuel injector and prevent fuel from flowing (a condition called vapor lock). Again, not a good thing.
Methanol is even worse than ethanol, so let's not get into that!
In short, there are a number of reasons why ethanol- or methanol-based fuels won't work in today's engines. That's not to say that future engines won't be able to use it. But as one poster mentioned earlier, the current installed base is pretty huge!
Meow
Windows is the Acme of computing -- in the Wile E. Coyote sense.
Actually a group at Cornell, I can't seem to find their web page, has been working on a hybrid electric vehicle(HEV) SUV. Kind of self defeating IMHO but because of the SUV popularity and the push to create less polution car manufactures think their might be a market for a practical HEV SUV. I believe it was last year that a brand new Blazer was donated by a trustee to convert into an HEV.
For those of you who don't know, most HEV's now adays use some amount of fuel to power a high speed flywheel which in turns powers the car through batteries. The challenge of creating an SUV that runs on batteries is keeping the weight from going through the roof. A lot of "new" materials are being tested due to the high speed flywheel needed to charge the batteries.
When I was given a tour of a HEV the team was working on they told me some funny stories of how the fly wheel had stopped working on a test drive and they had pulled to the side of the road to see what was wrong with it. A police officer pulled over to offer his assistance like calling a tow truck or something. They told him that their engine had broke but no big deal they'd just drive home (on battery power). They got a VERY strange look.
I've heard the distate some guys that work for one of the power companies here in NJ have for their natural gas vehicles. The company has some gasoline vehicles as well as some natural gas vehicles and they fight to not get a natural gas van. They told me they feel the vans have limited range and take all night to fuel up. Arizona may pay you 6000$ for your conversion but it seems to me you have to undergo a lot of hassle. On top of that until a large infrastructure is available to support alternate fueling methods you're not going to see a large shift in the publics use of the alternate fuel. Oil companies don't need to pay anyone off its very pricey to create the infrastructure.
I'm guessing that $10K is a bit of an overstatement, as I own a large, not-so-efficient car. Including the purchase price of the car ($300 - admittedly a good deal), engine parts for the rebuild (about $500), bi-monthly oil change (5 quarts of oil and a filter, about $12x12= $144), and roughly 20 gallons of gas a week ($1.70/gal x 20 gallons x 52 weeks = $1768), I've spent about $2712. You wouldn't need to buy shiny new wheels and tires (cost me around $500) or chrome engine dress-up parts (another $150)...
That still leaves about 7 grand that *I* saved over your mass transit. Your train apperantly sucks arse compared to my car. Next year I won't have to buy a new car or rebuild the engine, so I'll save even *more* money compares to your train. On top of all that, I'll bet that the small town that I live in has a *stronger* sense of community than your big ol' impersonal city (where I lived for several years before moving), and the only busses here are for the school kids.
I still think that there's a tighter community in my ~1500 person town than Brooklyn - but then, that's as difficult for me to prove as it is for you, neither of us having lived in the other's home town for nearly long enough to make an accurate judgement... I'll give you "most tight-knit relative to size", but I'm sure as you move farther south (farther than I am, certainly) and more of the town ends up related, you'll find a tighter-knit community, though. ;)
Europe doesn't get all its oil from the Middle East. You might want to check out the oil drilling efforts in the North Sea, some of the busiest oil drilling in the world.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
We would never never ever consider driving less because we don't have much of a choice. I don't know percentages, but probably by far most of the population of the US has no reasonable access to public transportation. Only a few of the very large cities have a decent enough infrastructure to make a car-free life feasible. For the rest, it's the car or nothing.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
In my original post I didn't put any spin, I simply stated that public transportation is almost non-existent in the US. By that I didn't mean that I wouldn't welcome it. In fact, most people opposed to public transportation have never experienced a well-run system themselves, relying instead on Hollywood clichees of the NYC subway.
You should visit any of the European cities with a decent rapid transit system and judge for yourself. Of course, as a tourist it's hard to develop an unbiased opinion on the basis of a couple of days. But people that use them for their daily commute rarely would switch to a car. You can read a book, work on a laptop etc while on the way to/from work. There's something to be said for a lifestyle where you can hop on and off public transportation on your way across the city, without having to babysit and nurture a car--find it a parking spot, feed it, maneuver it around all the idiots on the road.
Personally, here in Chattanooga I have to use the car for everything, and sometimes in the morning I'm longing to just kick back and relax on the way to work. Mind you, I'm not ignorant of the fact that in most places in the US the population density is simply too low to make comprehensive public transportation worth the cost. Here in Chattanooga alone--a city of about 150,000--the number of bus lines required to REALLY service the city would be mindboggling.
Besides, sometimes it is nice to have the car. It's nice to have both options, and many Europeans certainly share that opinion. There is a reason why Germany and Italy, along with the US, are the car richest countries in the world.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
Well, there are geographical reasons for that also. While the Middle East is That Great Place of Oil(TM), it also happens to be reasonably close to Europe, certainly by shipping line. So it would be a pretty natural place to get oil from even if it weren't a large part of OPEC.
Besides, as someone has already stated, the US has mostly exhausted its cheap oil. While we can kid ourselves that if we REALLY wanted we could be self-sufficient, the cost of that would probably be quite unacceptable to the general public. In case of war economics don't matter too much, so the US would probably be ok, but on a free market US oil is simply more expensive.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
The point is not that gas-powered cars are intrinsically evil. Any means of transportation is going to cause pollution somplace. The trick it to make sure that the costs you impose on others is fully accounted for in the price of the goods and services you buy.
Taxing people thousands of dollars for driving fuel-inefficient cars is excessive. The issues isn't fuel economy (since people pay for the full price of fuel) but pollution. A tax on cars with poor fuel economy might be reasonable.
Secondly, the point is to make sure people take into account the full cost of their actions, rather than to punish people who commit the "evil" act of using an internal combustion engine. Therefore the punative nature of your post is inappropriate. Expecting someone to pay 15 grand to drive a car that gets 10 MPG is absurd, and is far out of proportion to the costs such a car imposes on the rest of us. Do a little research before imposing your values on the rest of us.
The same logic would say the same thing about the tabacco industry. It doesn't matter if it kills thousands of people because Joe Sixpack would lose his job at the plant?
The tobacco industry hasn't killed anyone. Almost everyone who smokes is completely aware that their habit is likely to cause cancer and they do it anyway. They rational adults who are excercising their freedom of choice.
The tobacco industry has decieved people a few times, and they should be held liable for that. But the simple act of selling cigarattes is not and should not be considered unethical. It is not the job of a business to second-guess the choices of his customers, nor does he have anything to feel guilty about if a smoker (assuming the smoker is aware of the dangers of smoking) dies of cancer. The fundamental issue here is that people should be responsible for their actions-- cigarettes don't light themselves.
Secondly, money represents resources. When you say that some policy will cost a certain amount of money, that means that it prevents a certain amount of societal resources from being used for other purposes. Specifically, fuel-efficient cars will require more labor and more natural resources than gas-powered cars. So are you are saying that those extra resources should be expended no matter how many they are?
But if high overall demand from lots of people buying SUVs drives up prices, the people with efficient little cars have to pay more too, even though they contributed very little to the high demand.
I don't understand your point here. The SUV owners are paying through the nose to drive big cars. They are paying for their share of oil. Buying more of *anything* will drive up its price. That doesn't mean that the people who are paying more aren't paying their fair share.
The people who buy efficient cars are still making demands on a scarce resource-- oil. They should pay as high a per-gallon price as anyone else. The people who consume more gas pay more money for it, as they should. But I see no reason why they should pay a higher per-gallon rate for it. Causing higher prices isn't a legitimate externality unless you think people have a right to buy goods at a particular price.
Very true. Assuming that the crack being sold does not contain undisclosed impurities and the user is fully aware of the health risks, I don't think the crack dealer should have any legal responsiblity for the result. To say otherwise is to say that individuals are not responsible for the substances they ingest into their bodies.
If I choose to shoot up, that's my choice. I wouldn't expect anyone else, including the person who (at my request) provided me with that substance.
This is not to say that I approve of drug use by any means. And I'm not saying that drug dealing is the most honorable profession. But there's a big difference between personal tastes and legality. Regardless of my personal feelings about selling crack, I don't think it's right for me to impose my personal feelings on others. As long as all customers are voluntary and fully informed, I think drug dealers should be allowed to do their jobs without harrassment.
How many *more* people will be dependant on these resources then?
As oil wells start going dry, the price will begin to rise, and people will start shifting to alternative fuels. In addition, higher prices will lead to more R & D into new oil sources. Together these two factors will ensure a smooth and gradual transition to other energy sources.
How much more pain will be inflicted as a result?
Much less than if we start forcing people to use more expensive technologies now, when technology is less advanced and when the future of our oil supply is uncertain. People have been predicting the imminent depletion of oil supplies for decades. It hasn't happened yet, and may not happen for decades to come. It'll be much easier to switch to alternative fuels in 2050 than it is today.
How much more environmental degradation will both the consuming and the supplying nations suffer?
If you're talking about just the result of pollution, I don't there are any technologies that will eliminate that altogether. Solar and wind are not practical ways to power a car, and hybrid and electricity cars still use electricity, which in many cases is generated by burning fossil fuels. And cars these days are much cleaner than they were 20 years ago.
We *will* run our of petroleum some day.
No, we won't. There are two reasons for this. First, we keep finding new sources. The fact that oil is still below its price in the 70's tells us that it's still relatively plentiful. Secondly, if we ever do start to run out, the shortages will drive up prices which will curtail usage and preserve the reserves for the most urgent functions. There will be an assymptotic relationship: the closer we get to the "last barrel," the higher the price will go.
In practice, we will probably never hit that point, since as prices go up people will switch to alternatives and there will always be some available. Let the market work-- it will ensure a transition when it's needed, without imposing unnecessary costs when they are not needed.
So if I tell you to drink arsenic and assure you that there is no evidence that arsenic is bad for you, and you drink it, then I am in no way responsible for your death?
The industry hasn't claimed it's not bad for you since the seventies. It simply has claimed that the evidence is inconclusive. A better analogy is if I give you a bottle of arsenic with a big old warning label on it, and say nothing about its safety or lack thereof. If you drink it, you're stupid.
Regardless of what Big Tobacco has said, it's no secret that cigarettes are bad for you. One of the big reasons that Big Tobacco has refused to acknowledge the bad side effects in court out of fear of liability. But anyone who smokes today should have known for 30 years that they are bad for you.
As for the rest of it, you are saying that because you believe that oil is going to be scarce in a specific number of years, you want to force car manufacturers to adopt a new technology that you think will work better. My point is: how do you know it will be better? How do you know it will be more efficient? There is no imminent crisis. It doesn't take 50 years to retool a factory. And when oil actually does start to get scarce, alternatives will be produced due to market incentives, with no intervention needed. If, on the other hand, we find more oil and continue to have plenty for 100 years, your forcing us to use untested technology may force unneeded costs on society for no reason.
You are creating a crisis where none exists. If companies are slow in switching over their factories when the oil runs out, they will lose business to those who switch earlier. Therefore once a viable alternative is available and ready, no government interference will be necessary to implement it. The fact that no alternative has arisen in the market place is evidence that no cost-effective alternative exists. There is simply nothing that can beat the price/performance ratio of gas.
> If you built a car that ran on say Compressed
> Natural gas you need to have places to fill the
> tank. And not just one or two, you need it
> everywhere. And you need a method of distrbuting
> that fuel etc.
Not to mention the fact that if you made a car that ran on natural gas, you'd turn the average car into a modern day Ford Pinto.... A two car accident would probably take out about 10 cars and leave a crater the size of Nebraska!
;-)
Ben
Whether this makes up for the transmission losses, I don't know. Also because the power is going into batteries, you can spread out the burning in time, and is probably more efficient to consistently generate moderate amounts of power, rather than sudden bursts of lots of it as you accelerate off the on-ramp...
Fuel cells are the next technology, there is no question about that. The reasons why they are not usable in cars widespread ATM is that they are trying to find a safer way (and set standards) as to how to carry the Hydrogen. In order to be compact and effective, the Hydrogen needs to be VERY compressed. The danger doesnt come from the hydrogen itself, but the super compressed containers. In addition, fuel cell technology has not been sufficiently sized down to fit inside a normal car well. The other issue is that right now Hydrogen is very expensive. Nobody denies that Fuel cells are the next power source, everyone is behind it (except oil conglomerates). It will just take time and money to develop it more, so you can bet it will be a while.
I think that electric cars are a good idea, but I am not happy with the designs that I've seen. Why isn't any of the forward momentum being recaptured to charge the batteries? If my motor is driving a 5 inch gear, and my dynamo is driven by a 15 inch gear, and re-charging the batteries; doesn't this come close to being a perpetual motion machine? Also, remember that the form factor of the vehicle will have to change with other fuels. Make a vehicle slightly larger than a motorcycle, and then each person can drive one. Five vehicles that don't directly pollute, instead of loading five people into one vehicle that pollutes enormously. Dom
Anyway, we tax gas here too, don't forget, but I think (though I'm not sure) that the base price not including taxes is lower here. And if you're thinking that living in the UK is cheap, London is one of the most expensive places in the world to live.
If you think about it (or even if you don't) the price for gas is about the same or less than the price for coca-cola and nobody complains about the extremely inflated price of sugar water.
We don't get around much in the US. I agree, I find it hard to understand why we're complaining so loudly about our extremely cheap fuel prices.
The price of retail NG has increased even faster than gasoline, as people will be surprised this winter.
The infrastructure to find and produce NG is similar to petro. NG has half the energy density as petro per weight, so cars don't go as far. Still beter than batteries and current fuel cells.
At least not according to the best information I've heard.
I do know that they haven't been increasing production to match increasing demand for quite a few years now. We haven't noticed it until now though because we've had a succession of mild winters, cutting the consumption of fuel oil enough to offset the lack of increases.
Of course, I wouldn't have a hard time believing it if Clinton/Gore did do such a thing. Oh well. Guess who I'm not voting for anyway.
Yeah, I know about the whole pipeline/environmental thing (live in St. Louis). That may have upped them a little, but as many state reps. from the midwest have been pointing out, the environmental factors can't account for hardly any of the price jumps. They're blaming it on price fixing. IMHO it was probably just a price scare (people overestimating the effect of the environmental/pipeline thing). Prices around here have gone down to reasonable (not low, but not bad) levels, except at the really slow filling stations.
Yeah, it is unusual for OPEC to hold this well. Of course, cutting taxes is (paradoxially) probably helping them. When they cut gas taxes, OPEC counties can either a) Charge more w/out raising the price (& therefore cutting consumption) past pre-taxcut levels, or b) Charge the same, and sell more oil at the same profit/barrell. Yes, it's counter-intuitive, but think of it as OPEC just reinstituting the cut taxes, with the proceeds going to them instead. Raising taxes may help to break the cartel (along with cutting consumption), but that would be political suicide since us 'mericans are stupid.
Oh well.
If you have some decent referrence to the Clinton/Gore thing, I'd be interested.
It is true that gas-powered cars aren't intrinsically evil. It is also true that (many) people don't take into consideration the costs of gas/maintence when they buy a car. If they had to pay a large premium up front, it would open their eyes a bit.
You could also require dealers to estimate fuel costs, and list them on the lease agreement (not charge, just list). However, a premium on gas-guzzlers would point it out to people quite a bit more. Shelling out money has more of a psychological effect than seeing a estimate of future cost.
Taxing people thousands of dollars for driving fuel-inefficient cars is excessive. The issues isn't fuel economy (since people pay for the full price of fuel) but pollution. A tax on cars with poor fuel economy might be reasonable.
This sentance seems to contradict itself. Perhaps you mean "A tax on cars with poor emmisions might be reasonable". Well, the two are usually related.
You say you want people to pay for their effect on others. But if high overall demand from lots of people buying SUVs drives up prices, the people with efficient little cars have to pay more too, even though they contributed very little to the high demand.
here is the beginning of a thread I started along those lines. Perhaps you'd care to elaborated to this guy Rombuu I chastised (later in that thread) what internalizing negative externalities means. I don't have time to give the fool a thorough tongue-lashing, and you seem to know what it's all about.
Damn. I haven't gotten a lick of work done today, and I'm leaving in an hour. Good thing the boss never shows up.
Sorry. I've been getting increasingly annoyed at people, and my tone has been going downhill, despite my best efforts to stay reasonable.
/. is getting a little lagged, and I suppose I should try to keep more up-to-date on replies/re-replies.
Oh, and I called you an idiot and a fool in another comment. My apologies.
No, I really take a more traditional, conservative approach to everything (traditional conservative, not moral conservative). Do whatever you damn well please (smoke, fuck, pollute, encrypt everything, whatever), just so long as you stop your fist before you smash into my face (actually, 2 inches before, or I'll (try to) break your arm). So far as pollution goes, most people are really whuppin' up on me, and I don't like it. Keep yer smog to yourself, please, or at least pay me for it.
A real performance car (one that's meant to go fast + handle well) gets much better mileage than any SUV. Some of them even get pretty good mileage. They're generally smaller than an ordinary car, and they are made from much lighter materials. A 250 hp engine is an engine that _can_ produce 250 hp. It's also perfectly capable of only produce 100 hp, or some lesser amount. An SUV, on the other hand, is very heavy, so it takes much more energy to get it going, and all of that energy is lost whenever you brake.
Read this month's Consumer Reports, for example (sorry, the link to the article is paid subscription only, try your local library). They're reviewing the Honda S2000, Toyota MR2, Toyota Celica, and Mitsubishi Eclipse. All of them get more than 20 mpg, and I think the Honda gets nearly 30. Compare that to an SUV's 10-15 mpg.
Yeah. The Prius is from Toyota. The Honda is called the Insight. They're both really cool though...
Gas prices are high now because demand is high. Not because of a supply shock. Not because of pipeline breaks. Not because of taxes. Gas prices in the US are high because people are demanding a lot of gasoline, and the supply hasn't grown with the demand.
/.. People have a lot of absurd beliefs about the way things work, and the economists have had most of them licked since Adam Smith (with a tip of the hat to Keynes for filling it out).
It is true that in the short run, gasoline demand is inelastic. But nearly everything has a low elasticity of demand in the short run. If gas prices stay very high for 3 years, many people will have bought more fuel efficent cars. For now, however, people aren't going to dump their cars overnight. No sane person would expect that.
Also, I didn't suggest switching away from gasoline entirely. Hybrid cars like the Prius and Insight are as equally valid as fuel cells or natural gas. You can still burn gas, just don't burn it at 12 mpg.
<RANT>
Please, do the world a favor and take a basic economics class. That applies to everybody, not just this AC, or even the ppl. on
And vote. That's important too. Stupid politicians get away with stupid stuff because people don't vote (US and elsewhere).
Vote + take an econ. class. Could you all just do those two things for me? Pretty please with sugar on top?
</RANT>
The economy is dependant on diesel. Gas is just the thing that get's individuals in their cars from place to place. Diesel is what they burn to ship frieght.
There are no electric or "alternative fuel" based forms of transportation that provide the thrust/weight ratio
Gasoline is too expensive to ship frieght. Gas engines are horribly inefficient compared to diesel. A truck driver with his 20-gear diesel engine gets terrible mileage. But that's because he's lugging along a huge amount of weight. If you used gasoline, nobody could afford to ship anything around. Do you think it's a coincidence that even the smallest commercial trucks burn diesel? BTW, diesel is also a lot cleaner (except for the particulates) than gasoline, as well.
Also, I very specifically pointed out that diesel prices would _drop_ if you cut gas consumption. Every gallon of gas burnt is a bit less petroleum available for diesel.
Yes, raising the price of diesel would do horrible things to the economy. But that is most definately NOT what I suggested.
Social engineering would be saying "Ban burning gasoline/inefficient cars".
You should have said, "Why don't you internalize negative externalities somewhere else?".
All I'm suggesting is that air isn't really free. It is a resource that belongs to everybody. But since there is no well-defined sense of property rights (I own 1/200,000,000 of the air in this country, and here it is), people treat it like a free good. Well, since it isn't feasable to parcel it up, the best way to give it well-defined property rights is tax its use.
The EPA already does this with the pollution credits system. Monitoring the pollution emitted on umpteen million cars isn't feasable either. So instead, tax the gas consumption (more gas burnt = more air used), and tax cars (less clean car = more air used). It's indirect, but it's the same thing as charging for the use of the air. Treating anything like a free good is a Bad Thing, especially when it is a very limited resource.
You don't have to get rid of your gas-powered vehicle. But if it is generating a lot of smog, there is no good reason why you shouldn't have to pay for the right to do so.
I like do drive fast, very very fast. I speed all the time. I accelerate as fast as possible. I own a fast car. I do not care that I get only 17mpg. I would pay $10/gal and not complain.
INFACT... I would like gasoline prices to finally get to $10, so all of these minivan and SUV driving soccer moms would get off the f*king road.
Yes, I have hit the electronic speed limiter on my car numerous times; yes I know it's illegal (and punishable by jail time and loss of driving privelages)... but I FUCKING LOVE IT.
No it's not, it's vinegar, and it's great with salad.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Good thing that you never bothered to check your assumptions, because they can be easily dispelled.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Two corrections: ethanol production is not as heavily subsidized today as it was in the peak of ethanol usage in the mid-80s. Ethanol is actually mixed (20% vol) in the gasoline sold at fuel pumps in Brazil, so you would have a major problem filling up the tank of an unmodified American can there.
Second correction: I don't know where you get the notion that alcohol production consumes more energy than what is yielded by its burning. It's not like thermoelectric plants fueled by alcohol are used to power the distilleries, you know. Ethanol also has a nice side effect in that is a lot less pollutant than gasoline or any petroleum derivative.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
In fact, pollution is Sao Paulo has been steadily deteriorating since ethanol engines went out of fashion. I should know...
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
You may be right that is is cheaper now, but this situation will change pretty quickly long before we run out of it, as I'm sure you'd be aware if you were following the latest trends in crude oil pricing...
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
What the previous poster meant was that the ethanol used in the gasoline/alcohol mixture is dehydrated ethanol, not methanol. Methanol does not come from sugar cane, but rather from wood. I am not sure that it is mixed in any fuel commercially used in Brazil.
Para mais informações, dê uma olhada aqui.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Then you'd better tell all those people in Brazil filling up their tanks with it. Remember: in the mid-eighties this was almost 90% of all personal automobiles in the country...
Let's review:Yup, let's go...
The concept is that you have a renewable energy source. You effectively are harvesting sunlight.This only works if the amount of energy you get out of the fuel is greater than the amount of energy it takes to produce the fuel.
Great job, so far...
In order to distill alcohol to the point where it will burn as a fuel takes more energy than burning the alcohol produces.Close, but no cigar. Where have you got that dumb idea? You just have to boil and then cool it back to room temperature (roughly speaking).
Conclusion: alcohol is not a renewable fuel source. Now, if you are locating a nuclear plant next to the distillary to make up the difference, then you can use alcohol as an energy storage medium, just as you can use hydrogen or really big springs. But it isn't an energy source, it is an energy storage system. The neat thing about gasoline is that you get more energy out of burning it than it takes to produce it. It's just not a renewable source...Ah, now I see what you were driving at. To use your own words, gasoline (oil, really) is also just an energy storage system, the neat thing about it being that it you don't have to harvest, just mine it, which can be cheaper, but doesn't necessarily have to be so. I'm curious now, what makes you think that the solar energy absortion process in the origin of petroleum is any more efficient than that of alcohol (a.k.a, fermented plant carbohydrates)? Is there some mysterious biological process I'm missing? Or perhaps you think oil was formed by some magical non-biological process?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Minor nitpick: ethanol used as fuel in Brazil is dehydrated ethanol (ethanol with no mixture of water, unlike what is used for pharmaceutical/recreational purposes)
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Ethanol *does* damage rubber hoses over a period of time. It dries them out and they crack. The reason 10% is (typically) the amount of ethanol is that most modern engines can run with around 10% unmodified. I'm not aware of an engine that can run on 30% ethanol (unmodified) much less 100%.
Yeah, but then you have to let all your friends drive your car and tinker with it.
:)
Finkployd
Basically, the car companies are in bed with the gas companies and no one really gives a damn about the environment.
How would it benefit the car companies to be "in bed with" the oil companies? What is the benefit? GM makes the same money if you buy a gasoline powered car, electric car, fuel cell powered car, or an LNG car.
Electric cars don't really make the environment any better. They simply transfer where all of the pollution resides. Instead of being spread out over millions of miles of roads, all of the pollution would be concentrated in the urban areas that surround power plants, if we switched completely to electric cars. The eco whackos would never stand for us making a complete switch to a truly cleaner power source like nuclear.
Menage a trois.(I didn't feel like adding the accent marks)
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's relatively cheap. Even at $2.00(US) per gallon, gasoline is a very economical way to get around. The amount of energy per cubic liter is great enough to offset the inefficient engines that we use to burn it. At least for now.
It's easy to use. To harness the force of a small explosion is easy. Even in 3rd world countries a simple machine shop can build an engine.
Even though it's VERY explosive, losing a gas station isn't nearly as bad as what can happen if we lose a reactor to an accident.
Gasoline will be with us for a good while to come.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I think he's saying that noone would buy a car that used 5 times the materials to produce the same efficiency used today.
I think that Ford does promote smaller, more efficient cars. Look at the Taurus. It's priced very low, and it has always had good efficiency.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Here's a major selling point for me. How are the performance specs for alternative fuels? I like my speed, and I like getting pressed into the seat when I hit the throttle - and with today's high-tech engines, that rush isn't even that costly in fuel.
:)
Diesel is sluggish, and smells real bad. Yes, you can get a turbo-charged diesel car to power up a hill like a run of the mill gasoline burner, but a gas car made to perform will rocket up that same hill. Diesels are fast but they're not nimble, and that's putting it kindly. Adrenaline is better than caffeine after a long day at work.
Electric is sluggish. The new Honda Insight promises 60MPG, but I'm sure that it can barely get out of the way of a run-away semi. They're good commuter-mobiles, but they are simply NOT exciting to drive. Underpowered electrics may be efficient, but I just do not feel safe in one.
A buddy here at work is part of an electric vehicle test program, and while the car is an interesting concept, and has no emissions to speak of, it is a featherweight, underpowered slug. Also, the issue with electric is that the juice has to come from somewhere - and in many/most cases, that somewhere is a petrol or coal-fired plant. This is just defering the fossil consumption to a centralized location, a better solution, but not a complete one.
Electric cars are good for flat commutes, and for buzzing around town; but they fail to impress in terms of performance and comfort in hilly, rural areas.
I've never driven a methanol or propane powered vehicle. How are they for performance, both in terms of speed and power? How are they for cost of ownership (not just conversion by fuel, maintenance...)?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
On a recent vacation to Maine, I was struck by how sparsely populated that state is. A house every mile or so, with the center of a town denoted by an intersection with a single blinking red light.
I thought I lived out in the boonies; and by most standards I do - I let my dog roam and I can leave the house with the doors unlocked and the windows open, and go to work without worry. I have neighbors within shouting distance, and consider my area pretty crowded compared to the farmland nearby. And I live in Connecticut, dab-smack in the middle of the Boston-NYC corridor.
Here, outside the city, a car is required. In my close-quarters town, I can buy milk at the convenience store a quarter-mile away, but to do complete groceries I need to drive to the next town over (a large one) and choose one of the four supermarkets there. I do groceries for the week, not for the day. I'm fortunate to have a job 25 miles from home. I have friends who drive twice that far each day, and my GF is 65 miles away (no, not "away at college", actually lives that far).
Incidentally, on my vacation to maine, I learned that THERE, grocery shopping is a day trip for many people. Hell, all city dwellers should go there for a vacation. Stay in a cottage on Moosehead Lake and you'll meet people who live on one of the surrounding lakes... There are no roads to their homes. They own a float-plane which they fly to Moosehead, land there, get in their car and drive 40 minutes to Portland for a day-trip and annual clothes-shopping.
In Greenville ME., there is a great little restaurant (whose name escapes me) with a gravel parking lot on one side, and a boat dock on the other. People from across the lake, or from a few lakes over, take either their boat or float-plane out to dinner.
Hnice, get out of the city - you're much more likely to get killed in the street by a speeding bus or garbage/delivery truck that you are to develop pollution-related cancer in the 'burbs. And for God's sake, go on vacation and see some real trees.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I had also been considering the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius (to be released this fall) but the Insight was only a 2 seater and the Prius out of my price range.
Isn't the easy answer to this just have H@ powered power plants?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
The reason gas prices in Europe are so much higher is because of OPEC. Europe depends on the middle east for it's crude oil.
In the US, we produce a good amount of our own oil in Texas, Alaska, and probably some other places. Because if this, we are not as dependent on OPEC for all our gas, which lowers cost.
Agreed. I lived in Atlanta which has a nice rapid transit system. Not only did it cost almost as much to drive to a place (unless you were going clear across the city), the transit systems are slow, smelly, inconvenient, and unsafe. A car is a much nicer place to be. (Except on the connector during rush hour, if you've lived in atlanta, you know what I mean)
Uhh, why do you need 250 hp to go to the gorcery store? Or to the postoffice? Or to work?
Yeah driving a muscle car is fun, but it is just impractical for everyday use.
Personally I think that cars should be taxed directly proportional to their emissions, electrics will be 0 and then just keep going up, that way you can have your 250hp car (and all those yuppie morons can have their SUVs), but you will have to pay for it, you're polluting our air.
Q.
The good Lord only gave me so many seconds of life on this world. I don't want to spend them in transit, waiting behind slow cars.
I believe this wasn't a limitation of the car, but rather a driver suffering from Fuelorexia nervosa.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
More like $20k in this case, and remember that the posted speed limit signs indicate maximum speed, not minimum. It is not your God-given right to waste fuel driving as fast as possible at all times.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
> Mass transit gets tax subsidies, gasoline gets > taxed; if mass transit had to pay for itself, it > wouldn't be nearly so cheap anymor
In the U.S. gas gets subsidies too - it just happens 'up top', the companies get subsidized rather than the individual consumer. Otherwise it would be prohibitively expensive. And more taxes than just gas taxes go into building roads, not to mention the costs of commuting to communities. If individual vehical owners had to pay for all the costs of their vehical (cost of building and maintaining roads [perhaps on a per-weight toll basis -- i.e. a motorcycle would pay less than a compact car which would pay less than a station wagon which would pay less than an SUV], medical costs of people who are smogged out in cities where individual vehicals are the main form of air pollutions, the actual cost of gas, rather than the subsidized cost, etc) individual vehicals would look a hell of a lot less attractive.
> there are more services than people
This depends a lot on which city, where in that city and why. When I lived in seattle I had a convenience store about a block from me, a large safeway 6 blocks from me, a fred meyers department store (everything but clothes, really) six blocks from me and more clothing stores etc than anyone could want. Not to mention a *real* shoe store (as in they could resole my boots) within a few blocks. The only thing I ever had to go looking for was a good computer store -- and that, I expect, was because most computer buyers either live or work in the suburbs.
In contrast, I've lived in more than one suburb where the nearest convenience store was five miles through windy roads that all look alike (thanks to the look alike houses) and the nearest supermarket was perhaps seven miles out. There was no way to live there without a car, and my neighbors could still see through my windows.
I've also lived in some nice rural areas, where the nearest kmart was 40 miles away, and the nearest supermarket was 10mi, but the nearest road stand during the fall was only five miles down the road, and was picked-that-morning fresh besides..and my neighbors couldn't see me.
It's always struck me that suburbs are the worst of all worlds -- you're still too close to your neighbors, but if you want any real services or shopping, unless you're really lucky, you have to have a car.
But it's all about planning, suburban or urban (and to a certain extent rural as well)
Hasdi,
You make the point that I have been trying to make to some of my tree hugging friends for years. We must take into account engery density. Petroleum products have the highest density, until a radically different technology becomes available, we must exploit that. I would really like to have a really cheap,compfortable,energy efficient vehecle to commute to work, but it isn't here yet.
PS, it should be available as a single seater. I can't carpool due to my strange working hours.
V/R
Peter Theune
I live out in the middle of nowhere ( a town with approx. 36 sq. mi. and less than 1000 people). I bike in to work 10 mi each direction most of the year. It can be done. It's not a hardship - in fact, its probably the best part of my work day and only adds about 30 minutes to my total commute time. With a little bit of planning, even snow isn't that much of an inconvenience.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
But, if you get a really environmentally-friendly system, you can produce the Hydrogen at a plant powered by solar, wind, hydroelectric, or other 'alternative' electricity-generating plant.
I'm lucky enough to live in Portland, OR, which is one of (and hopefully soon, THE) most environmentally friendly cities in the US. IIRC, we get a larger percentage of our electricity from 'environmentally-friendly' sources than any other US metropolis (metro area with >1M people.) Yeah, there are smaller cities and towns (most notably in California) that get larger percentages (up to 100%) of their electricity from friendly sources (IIRC, 1000 Palms gets 100% from wind.) But, Portland is a large city, thus it needs alot more power. We get our power from hydroelectric (dams on the Columbia river,) wind (just added in the Columbia River Gorge, one of the most predicably windy locations in the US, which has great windsurfing, BTW,) and unfortunately, coal. Ten years ago, we had a nuclear reactor running, too, but it had so many problems we voted to shut it down. (Aah, gotta love Oregon. The closest to a 'true democracy' of any state in the union. Any one citizen can start a petition to get an initiative on the state-wide ballot for absolutely anything he/she wants.) Personally, I'm happy that Portland is very bicycle-friendly (in large part due to Portland's Bicycle Transportation Alliance) and have chosen that as my primary mode of transportation. With a bike (and a bike-friendly city,) a good public transit system (also bike-friendly,) and a cheap, fuel-efficient car, I can go anywhere I want. Plus, when my company goes public, I'm going to convert my car to CNG, electric, or some other friendly technology.
As for fuel cells? They still have a few years before they mature for proper use in cars. Right now they don't produce enough power for their size to be practical in regular sedan-sized cars. Companies could probably make it work in either a large vehicle (pickup/van) or in a small vehicle with no storage (a la the Toyota Prius,) but not in a 'normal' car without sacrificing storage space.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Here are several reasons that Gasoline is still being used and I doubt any of these will be overcome any time soon.
1.) Gasoline is cheep. Considering that a galon milk costs more in most US areas than a galon of gasoline there's no economic incentive to convert to another fuel. Any new fuel will be expensive until it becomes widely available. Does anyone remember when unleaded gasoline was first introduced? The gasoline was more expensive so people removed the catalytic converter from there cars and used leaded gasoline.
2.) It's relatively safe. Despite what the movies say, gasoline cars don't explode that easily and they don't burst into flames very often (except perhaps Gremlins). Methanol, Hydrogen, and Natural Gas are more combustable than gasoline.
3.) There's a huge infrastructure for the internal combustion engine. Gasoline pumps are only the most visible piece of the infrastructure. There are refineries for the fuel, and mechics to fix the cars when they break. There aren't too many mechanics who know how to fix a car running on a fuel cell. This can be fixed over time but, like all new technology, the first people to use the technology will pay a premium.
4.) The cost to manufacture newer types of cars is expensive. How much money was poured into air bags before they became mainstream in cars? That was just a safety item to get the glitches worked out. Imagine how much it would cost to get the kinks worked out of new engines. Don't forget, the US Federal Government holds car manufactures very responsible for cars. "Lemon Laws" force manufactures to buy back bad cars and I don't think that a new type of engine would be exempt from the laws.
5.) The US is a lawsuit happy country. In a time where you can be sued a cup of hot chocolate which is too hot imagine what an accidental fatality in an experimental car would cost.
6.) The gasoline car is reliable. The technology is solid and dependable. Nobody want's to be stranded at 2:00am in cold weather because of a glitch in a new engine.
7.) People are comfortable with the internal combustion engine. Never underestimate the comfort factor of the consumer.
Take a look on how Americans are choosing cars, you know those fuel cell or hybrid cars are not going to be common in North America soon. Although it's possible, fuel cell or hybrid engine are not as powerful as gasoline engine (otherwise you need to recharge soon, or use more gasoline in bybrid), and that means those fuel cell or hybrid cars are not going to be mid-size or above. Americans like larger cars in general. Streets in many cities elsewhere are not as wide as in North America and smaller cars are more popular. I suspect the demand is so small that production of these cars are not even get to the point of economy of scale. I bet, Japan will be the place you see more fuel cell / bybrid first, then Europe, then North America. Not to be soon.
A sig is redundant.
I happened to be talking to my brother yesterday, who is getting his PhD at the University of South Carolina in Chemical Engineering, and it's pretty much exactly on this topic. I don't know the technical details (I'm not a chemist), but basically, they already can make cheap fuel cells that run at room temperature based on hydrogen. Obviously, Hydrogen has some drawbacks. His project is trying to get the process to work with natural gas.
:-)
It's a very neat process - it runs at room temperatures, instead of the mega-heat of combustion engines, the by-product is steam, it's cheaper, it's very lightweight, and it's using a more renewable resource. So, researchers are hard at work!
(And if anyone wants a Chemical Engineer/Materials Scientist just out of grad school with a background in this kind of thing, feel free to send me email, he's looking!
-- Kate
More like 30%. Just look at the heat you lose. Efficient would be like a furnace where you can put your hand in front of the air blowing out. That is like 95% efficient.
atto
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
There's also a lack of motivation to research new technologies. The perception is that oil supplies won't run out in our lifetime, so let it be our grandkid's problem.
Humans suck.
If our province had that kind of incentive. Natural gas is much cleaner (and more efficient) than gasoline. The oil companies are a much greater monopoly than what Microsoft is, and everyone does complain.
We need a way to show the oil companies that we're fed up of lining their pockets with cash.
That is another good point, namely that many more people who learned to drive with small vehicles, are now driving SUVs and other big vehicles. This leads to more rolling, and other similar mishaps, for those that do not adjust to the difference.
:)
A similar thing occured when the high powered motorcycles became more prevalent. They are probably much safer in the right hands (bigger flywheels, better engineering, etc.), but nevertheless many people who weren't experienced were prone to taking offramps at too high a speed, with disastrous consequences.
In any case, I accept your point, and appreciate the cordial reply.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
All of the corn in the US will only provide enough ethanol for 4% of the gasoline demand?
I guess the stickers on the gas pumps in Ohio are wrong then - they say that the gas is 10% ethanol.
IIRC, similar requirements exist in most other 'corn belt' states.
I somehow doubt that such a significant percentage (I might guess 25%) of the corn crop will go up in flames as people drive their beloved SUVs.
Kid-proof tablet..
This is a greatly efficient car with about 60mpg. Unfortunately, as was mentioned once before, there is a Diesel TDI Golf from VW that pulls 70mpg. If you were to put a Diesel TDI together with a Co-generator, you may be able to pull 100mpg. Converting Gases directly with palladium is expensive too. Them fuel cells don't come cheap!
Lowmag.net
Something could be said for staying home, and working there if you were in the country. I have found you have to go farther in the city for convienences that are less than a mile away in my neighbourhood. That is a matter of population density. In the city it seems there are more people than services, in the country and small towns, there are more services than people. The city folk flock to my area because our taxes are 1% less, and we have more shopping venues.
By the way, we are not borg. effeciency is irrelevant.
Lowmag.net
There is no question as to the profitability of these cars: the manufacturers lose money on each one. Forget R&D, just the superlight materials alone probably put them in the hole...
The hybrid cars are more about corporate direction, identity, and getting the manufacturer's feet in the door of the future technologies.
----------------
Even if there was something to your 120,000 mile / 180,000 mile equation, you're dead wrong about the lifespan of a small unibodied 4 cylinder.
My 17 year old Tercel, which got me to work in comfort this morning, and the other thousands of early 80s econo cars that are well into the hundreds of thousands of miles, would argue that your durability expectations are way off. Just because a 4-year old american truck starts spitting out parts at 120k doesn't mean that a good japanese car (even one built almost two decades ago) is as poorly constructed. I don't believe that the japanese cars have become less reliable as the years go on, certainly not judging by the state of my friend's 95 civic, which is still in great shape after 200,000 of icy / salted / gravel roads in northern minnesota.
(although I do agree with you that the Chevy Caprice was possibly the pinnacle of American automotive engineering)
----------------
Sorry he's right. Even though the old cars emit far more pollution than the newer ones most green groups are against regulating them off the road only to be replaced by new cars. More pollution is created during the process of manufacturing the car than most will emit in their live times.
Of course to maintain a constant velocity you've got to be accelerating or you'll roll to a stop. Friction would be that unbalanced force doing the acting.
Actually with a trailer you've got plenty of trunk space. Get a tandem and fall a alseep.
I ride all year round. It snows here I ride in it, I commute in 100 degree weather in the summer. It's fine to be attached to your car and the lifestyle it encourages. But the fact is we've got pollution free technology that's sustainable.
I'm sorry, I found a job close to where I live. I don't make as much as I could but I don't have to pay for a car so in the end I'm better off. Hopefully you've got some options; bus, light rail, etc. They all work very well in conjuction with a bike.
It's funny that you mention that. Most electric plants can burn natural gas in addition to oil, so when the price of gas goes up they burn natural gas. This extra demand raises the price keeping it in step with oil.
You've also got public transporation, use it instead of bitching about fuel costs.
as long as they moderate it up as FUNNY i've got no problem with his quack bullshit.
You can always pump it back into the ground. The have to pump something in to keep it stable.
It's called a bicycle.
It's called a bicycle. It uses a highly efficient energy source that only needs food, water and air to operate and the byproducts aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as a gasoline engine. The best part? The cost, for less than one hundred dollars you too can have a bicycle. So stop killing yourself and the environment and get out of your car.
This is inaccurate. The total cost of taxes on automobile transportation are more than enough to pay for interstates and highways. The only reason that doesn't happen is because people come up with hairbrained schemes like your proposal to transfer income from people who drive cars to people who take buses.
Which taxes are you talking about? Gas taxes, registration? Do you seriously think that these pay for interstates and highways? They might pay for local streets but a majority of the money for roads comes from the Federal Government. Even if you're a few years out of high school/college you should know that Federal money comes from... you guessed it Federal taxes.
It is public transportation after all, not private, which requires exorbitant subsidies. At the college I work at the local Greens talked the college into subsidizing free bus passes for all students to cut down on automobile use, the only problem being that some like half a percent of all students actually use the service. Even when it doesn't cost money, the opportunity cost of public transportation is extremely high.
It's public transportation that gets the obvious subsidy. Private transportation is subsides, you realize the amount when you see how dependant the states are on it. It's the reason there's a uniform drinking age of 21 in the US. The states didn't just all decide on it by chance, the Federal government threatened to take away their highway money if they didn't raise it.
What your don't take into account in your example are the hidden costs of driving, like parking spaces. Over the course of a year, totaling all expenses a single parking space costs approximately $1000. I'm sure they don't pass the full cost along as parking fees. It comes out of operating expenses, which if it's a state school is tax dollars. If they can reduce the amount of parking needed then they've saved money. Talk to the greens, I'm sure they'd be happy to let you know exactly what they told the administration that convinced them to start the program.
. Last I hear is that in order to completely pay for the road system the US would have to raise the price of gasoline to about $9 a gallon (currently at $1.5-2 a gallon).
You heard incorrectly then... have a references to back up this statement?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Hey, what do you know, I agree totally. I thought from the tone of your original post that you wanted to raise the tax on gas powered vehicles above their full cost with respect to externalities in order to make them so expensive as to completely drive them out of the market.
The EPA pollution credit system is definitely a model for this sort of thing.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Tax gas. Tax inefficient cars. Raise the pollution controlls on _gas_ powered vehicles through the roof.
Why don't you take your social engineering somewhere else? If people care about the effects of their gas powered vehicles then they will demand alternatives which will eventually become available (in fact, they will pay a premium for them). If people don't care about the effects of their gas powered vehicles, who the hell are you to say they need to get rid of them. Oh, I know, you are one of those types who knows what's best for everyone.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Nice point, but water costs much less than a penny per gallon if you buy it from a city water supply or pump it out of the ground. That isn't what you meant, but hey, what the fuck.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
'nother CIDI link that I forgot:
Volkswagen AG is driving their Lupo CIDI subcompact around the world on a publicity tour. This is the first production "3-liter" car (uses less than 3 liters of diesel for every 100km -- about 78mpg).
It also sports a new transmission that's supposedly more efficient than a stick-shift.
Lupo 80 Days
BTW, VW is actually getting better-than-expected mileage. =-) This is more or less the same technology that you can get in a VW TDI (New Beetle, Jetta, Golf) right now in the U.S.
-cheers, fattyfox
We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone. -management
I don't know how you call the mix of the subject (we call it natural gas). It's cheaper than gasoline (in Argentina it's > $1 per liter of gasoline, you americans have all easy), it's waste is water and CO2, and the cost for converting the car is under $1000 (here). We have an extensive network of stations and you can do very long travels for 1/3 of the cost and no pollution.
In europe, they are using liquid gas (a heavier mix of the former 3 compounds which can be liquidified) and it has more advantages: smaller and ligther tanks and more autonomy.
If you keep using gasoline it's because you have it cheap, because you have the power to what your dumb asses want...
yadda yadda
"...but solar powered cars are not going to be powerful enough since nature puts a limit on the efficiencies of GaAs solar cells at 25%."
Percentages are meaningless unless we know the base values. For instance, if the surface area of your car doesn't get enough sun to have 25% run your car, just put a battery in your car that you charge from a solar plant that IS strong enough.
But even if we stick with burning fossil fuels in the electric plants we are still better off. Why? Because it's easier to optimize a plant for fuel consumption/low pollution than it is to optimize a car for the same thing. Plus you can re-engineer a plant whereas once you sell the car it's gone.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Don't compare "current power plant efficiency" to "possible power plant efficiency". I'm not saying we should make power plants more efficient (although we probably should).
Compare "car efficiency" to "power plant efficiency". What's better: 1 billion semi-efficient power plants with a size/weight restriction (cars) or 100 plants where you can design to maximize efficiency rather than aerodynamics, size, noise, etc?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"You make my point wonderfully -- "
Yeah, now that you've changed it. You are now talking about choosing to live somewhere and then being stuck with gasoline. But you started out talking about choosing to use gasoline even for people "outside the cities". Your implied strongly that people "outside the cities" could/should choose mass transit.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"You can choose to live this way, and it's fine, but if all of a sudden the inefficiency costs you, what can i say? Maybe all that space you put between yourself and your fellow man isn't as great or as necessary as you thought it was."
You need to get out of NYC more often. Yes, these people are choosing to live there--and I'm glad they are. Have you ever heard of "farmers"?
In any case, the cure you proposing (living close together) is worse than the disease (high fuel prices). In fact, "disease" is just the word. As is violence. Not much gang warfare or disease transmission when it's just you and the fam out in the middle of nowhere.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
They are semi-expensive, but as you note they are first generation (or close to it). Also, because they have all that electricity available, they are slightly top-heavy with electric features by default (power everything, AC, etc). That puts the price up a little, too.
However, as for mileage: According to Consumer Reports both of these cars got closer to 40 MPG city.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"finally, *could* you take a bus? are there no busses or trains? can you simply not be inconvenienced?"
Let me introduce you to the real world. From age 7 to age 16 I lived in a small town in Iowa. How small? Around 1200 people. That's right, fewer people than are in some high schools. And were weren't the smallest town around (check out Oskaloosa, IA on a map sometime--or better, Ivy, IA). The nearest "big" town was 20 miles away. No bus service in town or between towns. Heck, there weren't even lines on the roads (except the two highways that went through town).
And *I* was a "town boy". Every inch of land that wasn't in town belonged to someone's farm. Each of those farmers need vehicles to haul grain/hay/equipment--can't take those things on the bus. They needed transportation for emergencies--don't want to wait for a bus while your child is bleeding to death.
Yes, they chose to be farmers. I'm clear on the concept, you can stop repeating it. Your original claim was "...people outside of cities *could* constrcut decent mass transit...". If by "decent" you mean "it saves the environment" then this claim is simply false.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
"Now, of course, people outside of cities *could* constrcut decent mass transit..."
They could construct it--but why? People "outside of cities" by definition have low population densities. "Mass" transit requires high populations.
Of course, being from NYC you may consider anything with less than 10 million people "outside of a city". Are you aware that there are individual humans who live no closer than 10 or even 20 miles from the next human?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
We learned NOTHING at all from the gas crises of the late 70's. Look out on the road and you see nothing but big, wasteful, gas guzzling SUV's that get WORSE mileage than any of the big Detroit iron people used to drive back then. Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Me? I just ride by on my motorcycle, getting over 50 mpg at a steady 75 mph and (in Eddie Murphy's words) "Laugh mah muthuhfuggin head off!"
Buzzing the information Superhighway at Warp speed
I say we go electric, we'll use nuclear power which is cheap and our lives will be better for it.
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
I hope they never get rid of the combustion engine in favour of the electrical motor. Sure, it's less effiecient, but the roar of a combustion engine sounds better than the wirr of electrical motors. :)
//Hum
I'm too stupid to preview.
(PoV as in Point of View)
As a brazilian and as a user of both types of engines (my own car is methanol based, 1.6 l engine and my boss' car - gasoline based 1.6 l engine also) - both get me to where I wanna go but the methanol based one saves me some 40% to 50% on my gas expenses.
As to the environmental issues, this is a tropical country that's tipically hot and humid (at least around where I live), I've never heard of any major side effects due to the methanol engine - as a matter of fact my university studies this region very intensively and the only major ecological impact this region has had in the last 25 years was the construction of a dam which increased local average yearly moisture in 5%.
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
It's ethanol... the other poster was right... :)
BTW, gasoline around here is some US$ 0.65 (USA Dollars) per LITER (not gallon) and ethanol is US$ 0.35 per liter. A nice saving but the differance between the two is always fluctuating.
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
Let's see:
Gasoline has significantly more energy/cu. in. than the gaseous fuels that are best for fuel cells, and a lot of other liquid fuels as well. It's also a lot easier to handle safely with only 30 seconds' training, which is about what most people get.
Internal-combustion engines are ready to use in under 5 seconds, usually under one second if well maintained. External combustion takes longer to start up, and fuel cells take longer to shut down (and perhaps to start up -- some run at very high temperatures and have to be prewarmed).
Piston-engine mechanics are readily available everywhere.
The delivery system for gasoline is already in place. It'll cost billions to replace.
The car companies already know a *lot* about building piston engines, and the buyers trust those engines. Fear of the unknown holds back a lot of keen ideas.
This is the second post I read saying somthig like "I live a 500km from any where, and I can live without a car". Cars are bad, they are bad for the environment, they are not very safe and the worst they create trafic. Most of the large cities have HUGE problems with trafic, because every single person wants to have your own car. This is simply not sane.
All that said, of course that people that lives outside of the cities, where you don't have a mass-trasportation system available should use their cars. Even people that live in the cities sould be able to use their cars, but they should do it in a sane way (like using car pools, that I believe that are more commons in the USA then here in Brasil where they almost don't exist).
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabitt hole goes"
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
When I lived in Russia, my grandfather had a converted car. Under the steering wheel somewhere there was a switch to go from regular gasoline to natural gas (or whatever gas it was). It could even switch while running. This is really old technology and I have no idea why more people aren't using this
-S
It seems that I remember seeing a corn oil powered car on that old Discovery Channel show with all the cool inventions. Some guy retrofitted his Rabbit to handle it, and got about 10 miles to the gallon. Considering the cost of corn oil is low now, and a renewable source we can produce right here in the states, it seems like a cool idea. Plus, how else could you refuel at a grocery store? "Fill 'er up, and how about a dozen eggs?"
I agree with what you're saying up to the point of saying that a civic will only last 120,000 miles. This may be true if the body totally rusts out. Thin sheet metal suffers badly from rust, as you say. But well maintained honda engines will last a lot longer than that. My '88 CRX Si has 196000 miles, uses no oil, gets 38mpg, and is still as fast as it was when it was new. (but yes, you do have to remove the left axle to replace the alternator )-: ). My '86 accord I bought a year ago with 220000 miles and now has 242000 miles. Similar story with that one; no oil consumption, 32mpg.
To get back to the topic, I'm waiting for the 2002 Civics, which are rumored to have an option for a hybrid gas/electric engine system similar to that used in the Insight.
There's no doubt that domestic pushrod engines can survive more abuse... a friend had a '79 Nova with the straight-6, it ran dry of oil at least twice and still ran reasonably well the last time I saw it at about 120000 miles.
As far as the mitsubishi 3.0 V6 goes, I have another friend with a plymouth acclaim that has one of these; yes, it leaks oil from every available orifice. Good thing it's a non-intereference engine because he's got over 160000 miles on it and hasn't changed the timing belt.
My personal preference (maybe it's an acquired taste) is to drive something smaller and lighter with an engine that likes to rev. I've had fun driving, maintaining (I do all my own work), and tuning my CRX for 12 years. I'm guessing from your email address that your preferences lie elsewhere....
My Corbin Sparrow has a 156V, 45AH battery system It uses about 15A@120V to charge for about 6-8hrs for a total of about 14KWH/day (actually, it tapers off, but lets be conservative here). It's about a nickle/KWH here, but even if it were a dime, that's $1.40/day or about $30/month. And that's assuming you run the battery completely down, which I've yet to do (though I've come close a couple of times, but it's far from an every day occurrence). 1/2 that is more likely.
Just try to get an Insight. They're only making 4000 this year, and they were gone in the first month. I expect the Prius to do the same (it's just becoming available now in the Portland, OR area). And people try to claim there's no market for these types of vehicles...
We still use gas for many reasons:
1) It's better. Gas actually has a higher specific energy than most other liquid fuels and certainly better efficiency. (i.e. Does it matter if SuperFuel X burns 30% cleaner if it is also 30% less efficient?)
2) We have infrastructure. A while back here, diesel started getting a bit of noise. Except...there's only a few places for Joe Average to fill up on diesel. This is a problem.
3) Fuel cells: Just WHERE/HOW does one get the hydrogen? Split it from water? With electricity you mean? That comes from a coal or oil fired power plant? In the BIG VIEW, often the fuel cells can be just as bad, if not done properly.
That's a different pot of money for the most part - and the region is of strategic importance to us as well.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
And, we produce some of our own, or buy it from Mexico and other places. Unlike the EU, we don't get ALL of our oil from the middle east.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Wrong - Pakistan IS strategically important, but it is not allied with us - that's why we've bombed it.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Sigh. Okay, what you say IS *TECHNICALLY* correct, but if you check and see we get much LESS oil from there than Europe does.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
To quote Mark Twain, "I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way."
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
A lot of this is due to manipulation of the governement by big business. The MAIN reason we buy oil from overseas is so the oil companies don't have to pay hard working americans to drill it out of the ground. I know this for a fact: I own mineral rights in Texas, and you can BET I'd have some good cash right now had gas shot up any higher than it did. I couldn't understand why we weren't drilling already, but it's NOT that it's that much more expensive to get it here, it's that the cheep ass oil companies don't want to share the wealth so to speak with the people.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Anyone done the analysis taking into account the enormous amount of energy and water and toxic chemicals required to refine sand into semiconductor-grade silicon, grow the wafers and process them into high-efficiency photo-voltaic cells?
I've read of 10 year energy-breakeven times for the high-efficiency single-crystal cells, less for the polycrystalline cells, that are about 1/2 as good.
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
If I remember correctly, an internal combustion engine is limited by thermodynamics to something like 35% efficiency. Something to do with extracting work due to difference in temperature between the combustion chamber and ambient temperature. Judging from some other comments, the realized efficiency is something like half of that, about 17%. So there is some room for improving efficiency.
Fuel cells can be something like 90+% efficient by coaxing electricity from the oxidation process. I think the main problem with fuel cells is getting power from them at a high enough rate.
The main reason that alternative fuels don't do very well is that petroleum fuels are incredibly cheap. To match the energy content of $2.00 a gallon gasoline, you need 100 proof vodka at less than 20 cents a fifth.
Actually, in NYC, a huge chunk of the power comes from the Niagra Falls power generators; hydro power.
Or better yet, if you commute, get your company to buy one for you. Even if you do buy it, transportation to work is a tax write-off.
Take a look at this article from Home Power magizine. It's a 5KW fuel cell system that runs off natural gas, kerosine, gasoline, etc. It uses a catalyst to extract the Hydrogen from the fuel source. It is still a little large for powering a car but it would fit nicely in a small minivan. It costs $6000-8000 US.
if( read(this) ) { you = programmer; }
I'd love to. I live about 15 miles from work (LA area) and the ride would be perfect to keep me in shape for my weekend biking. But there's no safe route with bike lanes or clear sidewalks 100% of the way, and there's no way in hell I'll trust my life to the maniacs on the road. Just another reason why LA is so car-centric...
Say hello to zMac.
Actually, gas prices in BOTH the US and Europe are artifically high. The only reason that gas prices aren't 95 cents a gallon like last summer in the US is because OPEC is purposefully withholding oil production to keep prices high.
I agree that we should find other sources of propulsion, and I am a huge fan of public transportation, but there are just some places you really can't get to on public transportation even out here in the metrowest boston area... (massport sucks.)
Where do you get the energy to compress the air?
Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
Let's not forget that alcohol has about half the BTUs of gas. You can run higher compression because it's got higher octane but it also doesn't "bang" as well. You'll use more of it to get where you're going. Alcohol attacks the rubber that many fuel systems use too and screws up aluminum parts if you're not careful. Racers know this (ahem). It's a bit rough on the valves as well. Alcohol fires are "interesting" too, just ask any Indy driver who's experienced one!
Natural gas can work but again you've got a shorter range and more frequent fillups due to the volume used. The containers required are heavy or if made of carbon fiber (lighter) they cost a mint. All it will take will be some dork blowing himself up and people will freak over that too.
Want to get mad? Look at the cute additives they stick in during the Winter. Ask the local guys who hop up cars to drive on the street what they think of that fuel. It hoses the systems and the fuel is LESS effecient when that crap is added. During colder months the car should get MORE MPG not less. Why did they add it? To reduce emissions of course. Never mind that MPG dropped noticeably and that we burned more fuel to get "less" emissions.
Don't even get me started on the diminishing returns that systems like OBDII and the future proposed systems have. Some of those proposed systems would even allow roadside monitors to disable your car! Go after a smokestack industries and stop crushing classic cars for kripes sakes! If the Govt. had their way we'd have water coming out of the pipes and pay a million bucks for the cars that do it. Meanwhile big manufacturers will pour crap out of their smokestacks by the ton and crush irreplacable cars in order to "buy" that "right" with "credits".
Yeah, there's lot's to bitch about where all of this is concerned and it's nowhere near as simple as some would have you believe. Mass Transit often sux and isn't a good answer either where I'm at. For now I'll carpool and fill up when I have to...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
I was hoping someone would mention that "little" bit of extra work! It's not really as easy as just pulling up to McDonalds for a fill. I've read about several folks having problems trying to get the ratios right and learning how to get it right. Ambient temp and other things can make the production of this stuff slightly tricky. Heh, a trolling motor is supposed to be good for stirring it tho' :-)
Moderate this guy's post up please!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
The problem for most of us, I think, is availability
Actually, this is correct, but not in the way you think. The 'available' energy or 'availability' from an Otto cycle engine is much larger per unit mass of fuel than from fuel cells. We like power in our vehicles - for passing, for climbing hills, for peeling out after stop lights - and fuel cells just don't cut the mustard like a 302 can.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
first of all i don't drive 'muscle cars',.. those are 60's and 70's big-displacement clunkers.
i'm talking about an Audi TT which has a turbocharged I-4 engine, it gets 20+ mpg,.. it is no worse than most sedans, and FAR better than the SUVs, trucks and minivans.
and i don't use it to go to the grocery store, my life is much more exciting than that
think race tracks.
think long, winding, empty country roads.
i enjoy driving the way a lot of people enjoy watching tv, movies, fishing, etc.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
hey if 38 horsepower is all you need that's great, i'm happy for you. some of us aren't fond of anemic cars.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
but currently i drive a Mustang Coupe and that's feeling slow to me
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Canada: http://www.cheap-gas.com
Ottawa, Canada: http://ottawagasprices.com
Province of Quebec: http://www.abacom.com/essence/en/accueil_a.html
---
Could you provide some information on how you did this? I, for one, would be very interested in what modifications you had to make to the car.
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
I did find an interesting resource at http://web.bham.ac.uk/M.L.Wyszynski/people/publwys z.html for the feasability of such systems as hydrogen gas enriched fuel-based systems.
I'd personally love a car that ran on something other than gasoline, if only for the pure novelty of it.
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
The amount of petroleum which is used for plastic is an amazingly insignificantly small fraction of the amount of petroleum which is distilled and then set on fire. So when we've depleted oil reserves to such a point that it is no longer economically viable to extract petroleum for fuel, those tiny, insignificant (on the scale of the fuel industry) dregs which remain would still be enough to make a whole *lot* of plastic.
If you want to get rid of the bathwater, you've got to throw out a few babies.
I realize there are probably concerns about danger during a car accident (lets ignore the Hindenburg for now),However a car is unlikely covered in powdered aluminium or carrying liquid oxygen.
but how much volume does a kg of each take? Even if the liquid hydrogen takes up 3 times more space than gasoline, it's a break even right?
If you compress hydrogen you need a tank to resist the preasure, if you liquify it then the tank needs insulating. Either situation would knock the total weight back up.
Also refueling with either compressed gas or a liquid which boils at a lower temperature than air is going to be tricky.
I don't know what kind of steel you're using, but at 8 lbs/in^3, that's some pretty impressive stuff.
"steel" made from recycled nuclear missiles (including the warhead) maybe...
No one seems to have made the most important point about efficiency here. No gasoline, or hydrogen, or methanol or unobtani-ol will ever be anywhere near as efficient as an electric motor.
Though the motor may be efficent there is also the issue of the efficency of whatever generates the power in the first place. Also unless the vehicle carries it's own generator then it needs a lot of batteries.
A possible solution involves using an ICE running at fixed speed for electricity generation.
Well, he was probably using biodiesel. It is currently more expensive than regular diesel, but if diesel prices were to double (like the gasoline prices), it might start to make sense.
There are also issues of economy of scale when it comes to collecting the waste cooking oil.
This isn't funny, there is a real solution to a fuel problem, and all you think about is Chech and Chong. Henry Ford's original car had plastic made from cannabis, it didn't smell, get you high, or look bad.
Interestingly the Du Pont chemical company played a role in getting the Cannabis plant made illegal...
3. fertilizers/pesticides - hemp is virtually immune to pests, requiring no pesticide. Also, 14-18 tall crops are easily acheived without fertilizer
However a low (or even GM no) THC strain might be less resistant to pests. The whole point of alkaloids is that they are toxic to insects (typically also toxic or intoxicating to grazing animals too.)
Fuel cells run on hydrogen and oxygen. The most efficient source of hydrogen is from natural gas. This results in a great deal of carbon left over, a major component of so called green house gases.
Only if you combine the carbon with oxygen. Elemental carbon (as either graphite or diamond) is a solid. Also carbon dioxide is only an issue burning fossil fuels. Methane produced from organic sources contains carbon which was in carbon dioxide not so long ago.
Has anyone ever created a fuel cell engine that'll push an SUV at 80 mph? No. Electric cars currently suck. Is there more natural gas than gasoline in the ground? If we all switch to natural gas will it be cheap forever?
How much of our currently wild land would have to be plowed under to grow corn or rice for everyone to switch to methanol or ethanol?
Whether power comes from dead dinos, dead corn, or smashing atoms, it's all dirty and expensive. The right answer is to find ways to minimize it's use. But as long as you want to live 40 miles from work, pull your boat with your SUV, and live far enough from shopping that you have to drive to buy milk for the kids - stop your bitching! You made your own call!
Cars are not the only thing where inferior products are used inspite of better alternatives!
Look at computers where a larger majority of the population depend on M$ products that have been proven harmful to the economy and public life in general. This is simply because a large majority of the amt of support available for M$ products. Most ppl don't knwo how to work on non-M$ products. MCSE's are trained to work on MS-powered computers. Companies manufacture hardware mainly for MS-powered computers.
I mean, i would love to have a free, eco-friendly operating system right ? No paper/bandwidth/tv-time wasted for advertising, No plastics wasted on packaging.. but where would I get support to help me install it ? Just about only in some obscure HOWTO! This is precisely the reason why ppl dont' use electric cars as well!!
Now was that real funny or real bad ?
I really think we ought to rename slashdot to alt.conspiracy. Where else can you find the same group of people that will blame government and large corporations for being to stupid to do anything correctly but then turn around and in the same breath accuse them of being able to manipulate the global transportation market? Amazing.
It's simple. Because there is no alternative which performs as well in so many conditions so cheaply. Some alternatives may be more efficient, some may provide the same performance, etc, but NONE do have all the qualities gasoline does. And gasoline is cheap cheap cheap.
I agree as well. If one accounts for inflation, gas has overall become much cheaper in the US over time. Complaining about two dollars a gallon is nothing since in many European countries, costs are over $4/gallon.
It is not so much that the oil companies are totally unwilling to switch to non-petroleum fuels. Perhaps part of it is getting what one can before the cash-cow dries up. At today's usage levels, oil reserves will run out in 20-40 years (depending on who you ask). One could say its a slowly sinking ship, better start making some lifeboats (ie. alternate fuels). Something that at least some companies are doing.
What it part of it comes down to is a business choice. Make money now with less upfront investment, or throw lots of money at research and hope something useful comes out of it.
-Greg
>> ...10000 mpg...
> Uhh... The only way to get that kind of energy
> out of gasoline/petroleum is if someone has
> managed to figure out a way to convert mass
> into energy.
Easy! Take a string trimmer engine and graft it onto a 100 lb carbon fiber body just large enough for a 5'0 person. Make the driver lay on their back or stomach to cut the aero cross section. Use bicycle components for the wheels. Run the engine for 30 sec full throttle then coast for 3 minutes. 3000 mpg isn't too difficult. 10k is very realistic, especially in favorable terrain and wind. The SAE runs a similar competition for college teams. Search for "supermileage". BTW, avg speed is around 20 mph.
Ryan
> ... is another Not Ready for Prime Time Player.
Gosh, you think? It's a material science / mechanical engineering contest for college students. My point was that a 10k mpg car is possible for sufficiently relaxed definitions of "car." Which is what the original poster was commenting on.
Ryan
There is a huge infrastructure in place for refining, distributing and using gasoline/petrol.
It also has some excellent properties. Huge specific energy of combustion(Joules/Kg), fairly safe and easy to store (with care). If you were selecting a fuel for vehicles from scratch, you would consider ease of extraction, price, safety, specific energy, costs of storage etc. And the answer would probably be Diesel, rather than petrol. In UK the number of Diesel cars has increased enormously over the last 15 years, largely because it is fractionally cheaper.
Other choices: Natural gas is viable. It's more costly to store, but cheaper to extract. It is used to power some vehicles in London. Limited refuelling points is an issue, but will get better. Hydrogen is an excellent fuel, but is *very* hard to store. Vegetable oils are used in some buses in UK. This is quite expensive, and the exhaust smells vile. Electric power is still hampered by issues with batteries. The technology is progressing slowly. Only really viable in cities with pollution problems.
I want a fission-powered motorbike.
We're on our fourth (78 Mercury Zephyr, 88 Ford Escort, currently a 88 Subaru and a 92 Volvo 960).
They haul almost as much as a mini-van, yet handle like a car.
Plus they're very stealthy, no cop ever expects trouble to come in a station wagon.
George
When it's 10 F (-5 C) out, I like being protected from the elements.
When the road is covered in ice and snow, I like having 4 wheels on the ground instead of two.
When it gets dark out at 4:30 pm, I like having a portable generator with lights to let drivers no where I am.
When the road/parking lot is covered in an inch of slush, I prefer being in an encased vehicle.
Oh yeah, I live in Rochester, NY.
George
How about 15 miles each way, in winter, about 3 inches of fresh snow on the ground, and it's dark in the morning and at night, so you need a generator running of your wheel, or batteries.
You might get 5 mph.
George
Simple answer: Get yourself a recent diesel powered car and make your own Biodiesel. It's open-source, and cheap! Just hop down to your local fried-food place and buy their old fryer oil and convert it to biodegradable, cheap (@$.50/gal) fuel that makes your exhaust smell like french fries.
Or, if you want, buy some from a commercial distributor, that is most likely soy based.
Check out the following:
The National Biodiesel Board
The VeggieVan
I agree. People think nothing of buying a gallon of Coke, which would cost about 3 bucks a gallon.
Oddly enough, one of the 'big ideas' for improving air quality that was floated a while back and is (probably) wending its way toward production amount to installing a catalytic converter on the radiator/air intake, which has two benefits -- first, you clean up what's coming out the pipe in front of you, and second, burning cleaner air, your exhaust is cleaner. Some advocated using this technique to also remove non-car-produced pollutants from the air.
-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
Unless, of course, the electricity is provided by solar power, wind power, geothermal power, or a hydroelectric dam.
Uh, yeah. Let's see....sufficient electricity for this kind of application requires huge fields of solar cells, and isn't cost-effective. Geothermal is only applicable in certain places, and I don't think even the eco-nazis would allow a power plant to be built in Yellowstone. Hydroelectric is politically incorrect at this time...the salmon can't swim upstream, the natural floods downstream are stopped (i.e. the Grand Canyon), and areas above the dam are *gasp* flooded. Currently, the cleanest, most efficient method for electrical generation is burning natural gas. That's why utilities are building gas-fired plants all over the place right now. (Nuclear would be better from a long term/environmental perspective, but the anti-nuclear shrills have basically killed nuclear power for now.)
A) Hydrogen isn't as unstable as you seem to think it is.
True, hydrogen in itself isn't that bad, and in many respects, is a safer fuel than gasoline. But like nuclear power, it's a PR problem...all people think of when they hear the word hydrogen is the Hindenberg, and maybe H-bombs.
B) Even if you could mine for hydrogen, why go to all that effort? In case you forgot, water is easily cracked into hydrogen and oxygen, and that is far from the only source of hydrogen around. Hydrogen is fairly plentiful, certainly more so than petroleum.
But how do you crack water? With electricity! The economies simply aren't there.
>a quarter of a million americans
>are killed in car accidents a year.
No, 42,000 people are killed in car accidents in the US every year. Unless there's a lot of Americans being killed abroad, you're off by a factor of 6. 250,000 americans suffer serious injuries in crashes every year, but only 1 in 6 dies. Reference
-Tom Duff
It's simple. Peak usage for the power to recharge the car is at night, wheras peak usage for things like air conditioning are during the day.
Another idea is that you usally have 8-10 hours before you need to use your car again. So on those hot days when the AC is running, you have a solar panel on the roof of your car charging the batteries.
I think that this would be a very neat idea, especially with gas being as high as it is right now. I just don't think that it's going to happen anytime soon, though. The only way it's going to happen is if big car makers start premaking there cars to a new system and they won't do that until they know it will bring them cash.
Yep - trains/buses are all well and good, where :>) - w/ population density of less than 10 per square mile, or even 50 per square mile public transportation instantly becomes much more of a problem. You don't need a car, good for you. I do. Not because of a "lifestyle choice", but for good old transportation - there's no other way to get to work when your workplace is 45 miles away, and the nearest grocecery store is 10 miles. Want to ride a bike? Good for you. Your carcass will be spread across a mile of rural 2 lane highway that wasn't designed for bike riders.
there's enough people to pay for them. In NYC,
where your population density is several thousand
per square mile - great. Lots of people, limited area to cover. Now try the rest of the US (aka -
"the real world"
It would be nice to have a good nationwide public transportation system - ever read "Heavy Weather"? Bruce Sterling describes a very nice dual system - the current highway system still exists, but cars are "smart" and capable of driving themselves. There's a cheap, wide ranging, FAST rail system for those that don't want/can't afford cars.
ObTagLine: The more you run over the 'possum, the flatter it gets.
IIRC, fossel fuel power plants are about 40% efficient at turning heat into mechanical energy. There are some fairly hard limits on energy recovery in a thermodynamic cycle of the type used by every internal or external combustion engine. You can see this by examing a carnot cycle diagram for the particular plant, but I don't have one handy.
Fuel cells tend to win big on efficiency measurements because they do not used a thermodynamic cycle, but an electrochemical path instead -- less entropy is introduced that way.
hth
because cars run on gasoline.
and gasoline stations are everywhere.
they employ millions of people.
the same shortages/problems could exist for any power source.
Drive a diesel, VW TDI. Get 50 MPG. Pollute Less. Be Happy.
tdiclub.com
I'm trying to work it out but I think gas/petrol does cost about 6 bucks a gallon over here in England and the levels of traffic have just been going up and up. If someone needs to make a journey and there is no viable alternative to the car, then they'll use their car, simple as that, regardless of price.
(Petrols about 90p per litre over here, so that's roughly 5 litres in a gallon, so £4.50 per gallon, converted to $ is roughly $7 per gallon)
"Thank you for informing us Yanks what our rights are... we have been lacking that sort of insight for centuries now"
And look where it's got you!! Sorry, couldn't resist.
That's so classic, most people when confronted with something outside of their world view find it easier to dismiss it with insults than investigate and possibly amend their thinking. You are one of the sheep that he was refering to.
It's been my understanding that fuel cell cars _are_ electric vehicles. The fuel cell combines hydrogen and oxygen into our friend H2O, and produces electricity as a result (the reverse of the standard water-splitting reaction, catalyzed by electricity). It's a battery replacement, not an engine.
Then you'd just hook your favorite electric motor to the output (with a buffer battery in the middle, I'd assume) and off you go.
Of course, you'll need to come up with a good fuel source; something to get hydrogen from (from what I understand, pure hydrogen isn't all that energy-dense. Methane or something would be better).
It's much easier to acheive both a more efficient reaction and cleaner emmision in a central, controlled environment instead of 100,000 smaller, cooler, more compact ones.
You don't need sugar water to live. In modern society, you DO need gasoline to live.
--
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
Here in Oklahoma, USA, natural gas is the only thing I see powering any vehicles other than good 'ole gasoline. Wanna know why? Because the same oil companies who find, drill for, refine, and sell that gasoline are the same companies that find, drill for, refine, and sell that compressed natural gas. Believe me, we have more than our share of oil companies here in the Sooner state, and they are turing to natural gas in droves because it is much more profitable than trying to compete in the crude oil market. I'll leave any further conclusions to the conspiracy theorists among you. :-)
I wonder how many people who are complaining about fuel prices in this forum own monstrous SUV's, Hummers, Porsche's and other vehicles that are incredibley expensive, luxurious and gas hogs.
Remember it, write it down, take a picture, I dont give a fsck!
I remember a show on PBS a while back about alternative energy sources, and this same argument came up. Electric cars are really not much better than what we have now, because the grand majority of our electricity still comes from COAL. You may as well drive a train.
Solar power is no good because on cloudy days (or if you live near the poles) you get none.
Wind and water are sorta promising, but they have their problems, too... Nuclear power is still viable, but too many folks jump up and scream "Not in MY backyard!" for it be widely accepted.
If anyone can come up with something truly revolutionary I'll be the first in line.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Umm...why do you think the region is of strategic importance? Why is Kuwait strategically important, but say...Pakistan is much less so?
Petroleum, of course.
The Petroleum Industry is what makes the world go 'round.
Seriously, take away OPEC, and suddenly, first world countries are in a panic. Like it or not, we are as dependant on Oil and Gas as we are on computers; This is just not for the reason that we need gasoline to power vehicles either. It's because we need the Petrol Industry to keep our market afloat.
Living in Alberta, Canada (a 'have' province), this reality is very apparent. The success of Alberta's economy is almost directly related to oil and gas. If this industry was to disappear, then my province would be a very poor one indeed.
It's in my opinion that ridding the world of the Petrol industry is not in the best interests of any first world nation. I do believe that technology exists to completely remove peoples' dependance on gasoline, but not our economy's dependance.
However, what you can do (maybe) to save space, without being completely impractical, is to adsorb the hydrogen onto a surface. And this, of course, is what a fuel cell is all about. (It remains to be seen if this can be made practical.)
Actually thats what metal hydrides are all about. The fuel cell is used to convert hydrogen back into water while producing energy from the reaction. The fuel cell is not the storage mechanism.
It wouldn't be all that bad. For example, at noon hour, every last soul in San Fransisco turns on their air conditioners, and transformers spark. But, one could recharge one's car anytime during the night, during off-peak hours, spreading out the power usage.
Wah!
From what I've read lately, today's IC engines generally top out at around 30% efficiency. So far, fuel cells range from around 40 - 60% efficiency.
That's only part of the story. An IC engine "outputs" mechanical energy, a fuel cell outputs electrical energy that has to be converted to mechanical energy. Putting an electrical motor into the equation further reduces the efficiency.
But I'm not dumping on fuel cells. Their real advantage is in the low emissions, and I'm hoping that they can be made small and efficient enough to work well in cars. That is not the case yet.
Do you have ESP?
Basically, the car companies are in bed with the gas companies and no one really gives a damn about the environment.
Fortunately, we are on the brink of an explosion of Fuel Cell technology. Much in the same way many countries that are become "modern" avoided the hassle of setting up expensive phone systems by jumping straight to cell phone technology, many countries will avoid setting up huge power grids by jumping straight to fuel cells.
Coupled with an increase in fuel cell production in 2001-2002 we should see companies like Ballard gaining enough clout to join in and form a menage tois (sp?) with the car manufacturers and gas companies.
that's what i'm talking about --
while i take issue with the notion that nyc is expensive, given what you get (complete comprehensive access to the largest city this side of mexico for $63 all-you-can-ride for a month = less than most folks pay for insurance), cars are worlds beyond in terms of what it costs both the state and the individual to buy, power, and maintain. i'm not sure why people keep clinging to the assertion that they're no less efficient than mass transit.
generally, the tenor has been, "i need my car cause in my city mass transit sucks, you east-coast snob," when it ought to be, "gee, my transit sucks -- east coast snobs, how'd you make yours work so well?"
god is just pretend.
actually, it costs me 63 dollars a month to ride all i want here. that's 756 dollars a year. i win, even over a fantastic deal like you've got. imagine the savings over someone in jersey driving, say, 50 miles total a day, paying 2k a year for insurance, plus repairs, plus tolls.
re: community, pshaw. brooklyn is the tightest-knit community in north america. i'm 50 yards from a thousand people who know me on sight and trust me and will look out for me, to some dgree or another.
god is just pretend.
While i agree that it's not the fault of any individual, the fact that rapid transit isn't what it might be is both a cause *and an effect* of people's commitments to their cars. No question, more people would take the bus if it were cheaper or more convenient. But one might also assert that without sufficient initial interest in taking the bus, no one's going to make transit more convenient or cheap.
People love their cars. It's got something to do with Grease, i think, but it's not rational. Built for the way you live. Like a rock. It's American. But it's not rational.
So people love their cars for 50 years, and they design their cities based on this, and they all move to where they're an hour away from work. And that's ok. But don't expect those of us who take the subway to work to care if gas goes up to 6 dollars a gallon. In fact, I hope it does, given that maybe then our kids will be a little less likely to get skin cancer.
Cars are an unneccessary trapping of the sickness that is urban sprawl. Live where you work. Sleep under your desk.
god is just pretend.
"I ask you, have you ever *seen* Wyoming? Or better yet, have you ever seen an unbroken expanse of land larger than 1sq mile with no people in it?"
oh -- i see -- you imply that i'm not in touch with your world by asserting a stereotype about people in mine. hmm. that's nice.
and i never said that living outside of a city was terrible, but it's got a downside -- cars, for one thing. do you dispute that you need your car? cause i don't own one. it saves me on the order of $10k a year, it's good for the environemnt, and it builds community.
god is just pretend.
i don't deny your right to decide not to live in the city, but when you make that decision, you live with the fact that gas prices vary.
and as far as government meddling, aren't you sort of dependant on *some other government* for your petroleum products? hmm. sort of beholden to somebody there, non? at least my means of transport is controlled by americans.
god is just pretend.
as the french say, whoomp, there it is --
living in an area removed from where you work destroys neighborhoods, accountability to the people around you, it segments work from life, it's bad for the environment. terrible stuff. you should care about where you are, and have a stake in it. cars kill this.
god is just pretend.
first off, $1.50 is super cheap. i pay 63 dollars a month for all-i-can-ride. that's $756 a year for all of my transportation needs. that's the price of car *insurance* in most places. we're cheaper than london, than dc, than paris. so yeah, cheap.
btw, the 1239 is the best train in the city. i love it.
re: people wouldn't drive if they thought it was harmful, i think that this is a false syllogism. people may not know, or they may not want to be inconvenienced. or they may be hooked, like smokers. they know it's bad, and do it anyway.
god is just pretend.
yes there *is* reason for you to pay more! you have chosen, i repeat, *chosen*, to reject certain economies of scale. no one made you, and you think you got a pretty good deal, cause you got a lawn and a bigger place than you might in the city.
but in choosing to abandon these economies of scale with regards to transportation, you willingly put yourself in a situation where transportation costs more. if you don't like this inequality, you're free to move to a city, but that, too, has its downsides.
suburb dwellers choose to pay more for transport.
god is just pretend.
awww, yeah. that's the stuff.
i can't stand those suvs.
i think, maybe, and this vitriol is showing it, that nyc is unique in the us in terms of the fact that cars can make your commute worse.
but this should only make other cities jealous to figure out how we do mass transit so well.
god is just pretend.
Heck I eat carbon everytime I cook ;P Seriously though about the supply of fuel for hydrogen engines. I do remember reading an article once (ca. 1990) about storing fuel for a rotary hydrogen engine in a metal hydride form (MHx) which, if I remember from chemistry, is not flammable. However if you mixed it with water you produce MOH and H2(g). I think in the particular article the hydride of choice was MgH2. So there was this container about the size of a regular gas tank, and since the fuel is solid (denser than liquid gasoline or pressurized gas) you could store alot of fuel and I think they mentioned that a full tank could last months - years (??) of "average" driving. That seems to be a very long time, but I thought that's what the article said. Also the engine was not a fuel cell but rather a hydrogen rotary engine (internal combustion).
"And now you shall learn the secret of boot to the head"
...I mean the reason we never thought to make smaller nuclear reactors was b/c of the failsafe issue. With Helium-3 there is no contamination issue. Maybe a Helium-3 cell that generates electricity. Could 3He be used in combustion? With 100 million tonnes of it on the moon, that would be a very clean, long-term solution.
You want to really reduce pollution? Slap some emissions restraints on recreational engines. One hour on a Jet-Ski puts out more pollution than driving a new car for 100,000 miles.
Don't even get me started about lawn mowers.
Okay. Maybe if you look at a single indicator of pollution, let's say, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) you might be somewhat correct, if the car was perfectly tuned and the catalytic converter worked perfectly. But overall, looking at total pollution (SOX, NOX, O3, CO2, particulates) your statement is ludicrous. A JetSki probably burns around one gallon of gasoline in an hour. That can't produce more than 8 pounds of total pollution without violating the principle of conservation of mass/energy. Period. Driving a car for a year (~12-15KMiles) produces (generally) over a ton of pollution.
Things that make you go "GNnnnnaaaaaa"
CM
Pretty much all of the available hydro in the US is tapped, and the payback on solar and wind is still an order of magnitude beyond what fossil fuels are - I haven't seen any analysis of the environmental impact of producing and disposing of solar cells, but I can't imagine it's a squeaky-clean process.
It appears to me that the best way to go about things is to sleep when its dark, and bicycle or cross-country ski as much as possible. Take that OPEC!
CM
SUVs also lead to a false sense of safety. Being from Vermont you'd be surprised to see the number of four-wheel drive SUVs off the road in a snow storm because the driver thought that he could drive through anything. If we used less gas, it would be cheaper and better for the environment.
I recently purchased a Honda Insight, from Fairfax Honda, Fairfax, Virginia. Don't buy anything from them.
The Insight is the first Hybrid vehicle released in the U.S.
The car has a 3-cylindar VTEC engine, with motor assist, for accelerating. It has regenerative braking, to charge the battery.
I never need to plug it in, and I fill the gas tank every 2 weeks. Milage listed by Honda is 61 City 72 Highway! I get about 50, but other owners have gotten up to 80.
More info:
http://www.honda2000.com/insight
http://www.insightman.com
http://www.insightcentral.com/
--
it's a sig, wtf?
Unfortunatly this is just wrong.
a) Estimates for reserves of oil and gas are usually severly flawed and horribly inaccurate.
i)Is USGS 2000 Assessment Reliable?
ii)Reserve Growth: Technological Progress, or Bad Reporting and Bad Arithmetic?
b) As demand for gas increases its true we could just drill more wells, but all the easy stuff is gone. It gets more expensive and more difficult to extract hydrocarbon resources from the ground and therefore prices remain high.
i)What goes up must come down: when will it peak?
Using hydrogen is the best option, although a lot of people will disagree with me and I admit there are problems with storage and capacity, but I don't believe they are so insurmountable that the benefits wouldn't outweigh the problems.
Coupled with solar conversion plants we would have an unlimited supply of power that would work with fuel cells or direct combustion engines.
It has been sometime back, but I saw that they could create mile long solor panels with fair ease. What is the current efficiency rating for solar panels now days? Last I heard it was less than 20% at best.
--Scott 8-}
First time I've heard of gas using the GPL!
Beats me!
I got tired of it last year. I built an electric Miata for my own use. You can see picture of it here and here [That's the Corel building in the background.]If you live in North America outside of California, and you want to drive an electric car, your choices are:
- buy a modified Geo Metro from Selectria (a good car!)
- build your own
So, that's what I did. I've been on the road since April, and driving this car is lots of fun! Silent! and fast: I've been over 130kph=82mph. It's become a bit of an "item" in the Corel parking garage!I'd encourage anyone who can, to invest in an electric car. It's way better on the environment than any other form of currently available vehicle. [The Honda Insight is a close second: 80mpg and almost no CO emissions].
Pat Beirne
Chief Engineer
Corel
That would be a generic 'You' as I personally live 3 miles to work and I'm starting to bike to work now. But I also might be getting another job, my current home was chosen for it's nearness to my workplace. The next job I get might be 45 minutes away, and I won't be able to bike to that. Changing circumstances force someone to commute when once they didn't have to. My total transportation cost is about 10$ every 2 weeks for gas.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I saw an old (1930's-40's) panel truck ing a junkyard that was a fleet truck from the factory setup to switch between gas & propanor natural gas. Wish I'd bought it for the cool factor if nothing else... Diesel engines run fine on soybean oil. Hemp seeds are an even better source of oil. Might help road rage too if everybody was burning hemp oil in their car :-) Gotta go its almost 4:20...
Do you realize that I-95 is subsidized on the order of _100%_ by the state and federal government? You don't pay tolls, do you?
Actually, we do. At least in Ohio. Even though it doesn't seem like it. It's called the gas tax. The money is collected by the govt. from us, and the government uses that money to pay for the construction/maintenance. Here in Ohio, the roads are fairly nice and get repaved often. Now go to indiana. You pay ~15 cents less in gas, but you drive on crappy roads (at least the highways i've been on). It's not a toll per se, but we do pay for the roads.
-- Bucket
Most of the best solutions to the problem (for cars at least) involve hydrogen in one way or another (fuel cells being the most widely known alternative). We have plenty of ways of storing, transporting and using the stuff, but where do we get hydrogen and how do we do it? That's the problem. You can get hydrogen from just about anything. You can extract it from dirt if you want to. The problem is that the amount of energy required to break the chemical bonds that hold hydrogen in most molecules is greater than the amount of energy you get back when you use hydrogen as a fuel.
It's this energy deficit that has stood in the way of the practical use of hydrogen. There is promising work going on that is trying to find a way to extract hydrogen using solar or other relatively free power sources to extract hydrogen from water (or whatever), but none of these projects have gotten to the "real world" stage yet.
As for hybrid gas/electric cars, they do exist, but most of the really great models are still concepts. The most mileage you can get from an actual street-variety hybrid (that I know of) is about 70mpg which isn't that big an improvement when you consider that they haven't made an SUV model yet that will appeal to the brainless masses.
Ain't technology wonderful...
Hmmm, I smell a patent application...
~Sean
Honda has that new car (the Prius?) that gets ~60-70 MPG, and Toyota is going to start shipping a similar car.
Actually, the Prius is from Toyota, and Honda is soon coming out with a similar one.
The prius is really cool. It's got a small gas combustion engine (~50 h.p.) and a small electric motor (again, ~50 h.p.), which I believe runs on a fuel cell. The two work together. Then they did all kinds of stuff to make the car more efficient. They even designed special brakes which generate electricity as you slow the car down. I want one.
You can read more about it at prius.toyota.com.
Wangden-- "You're not fooling me, young man - it's turtles all the way down!"
We can geneticaly engineer mice to have skin like the face of a teenager, and hook them up to an oil harvesting machine....
Instead of pouring sugar into a gas tank, vandals could use Clearasil!
The airplanes of today are the airplanes of the 1970's, in many cases.
I don't want to be excessively argumentative, and I agree with your comments re. cars, especially the individualism remark. However, I guarantee you that there are more automobiles on the highways today that were built in the late 70's/early 80's than there are engines in aircraft built in the same time period. Especially in atlanta- I've been forced to navigate Atlanta traffic during rush hour (3 pm to 8 pm!) many times, and I am amazed at how many ancient cars there are billowing smoke and noxious fumes. What is I-75, seven or eight lanes? Bumper to bumper full of boatmobiles with 20 year old V-8 engines running completely off-design, at their least efficient performance point. I literally cannot roll down my windows. I'm sure a lot of cities have similar traffic problems, but imho Atlanta is the worst.
Aircraft airframe design is very well understood, and has been for many years. This is why airlines today still use aircraft that were designed in 1970, with a few minor modifications. It's pretty tough to improve on a vehicle already optimized for a given flight regime. However, turbine engine technology has advanced a tremendous amount in the intervening years, and an airline can save big money with even a fraction of a percent increase in fuel efficiency or power. Combine this with the fact that engines are designed to be replaced every few years (more precisely, every thousand hours or so of flight time) and are required to undergo periodic overhauls for safety reasons and you start to see why very few 30 year old engines are still in the air.
Rev Neh
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
FYI: The url is http://afdcmap.nrel.gov/nrel/
________________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
I bought an Insight. I was on the waiting list for 4 months until a dealer found one for me. I drove it for 4 days and I was hit by maniac turning a corner at 80 mph as I was sitting at a stoplight. The car kept me safe, but its still in the shop a month later. I can't wait til I get it back. I wonder how many other slashdot readers bought one? I'll bet I was the first to have body work done to mine. :-)
We use gas for the same reason we were all pushed away from public transportation about 40 years ago. For the same reason we all live way out in the suburbs and have to drive for miles (one person per car) in our gas-guzzling SUVs to get anywhere that we need to go. Who benefits from this type of system? The auto industry and the oil companies, two of the most powerful "interests" in the country. That's how much influence mega-corporations have on our lives. They will continue to use their influence (money) to change the way we live in order to improve market conditions.
Wow! I'm glad you're ok.
How much was the estimate on the damage?
I actually got rear-ended about 10 days after I got mine. Luckily it was very minor damage. I haven't had it fixed yet, but you can barely even see it.
I heard of one guy who had his insight totalled like a week after he bought it. He got hit by a Caddy.
Also, are you on the egroups.com insight mailing list?
Insight acceleration is about 10 seconds 0-60.
:)
>they're extended range on the highway is limited
>to how long the battery lasts (that 1.3 ltr
>inline 3 doesn't make enough horses to keep the
>car going along at 80 miles an hour by itself)
That's just plain wrong.
First, it uses the gas engine on the highway (as well as the city most of the time) so range is not a factor.
Second, I have an Insight and I drive 90+ miles a day on the highway. Typically, drive around 60-65mph, but occasionaly get up to 75-80mph. So far the top speed I have gotten it to is 105mph.
Unless you have actually driven the car, please don't make assumptions about it. It's not your average car!
Actually, CR doesn't know how to drive the car.
I have the Honda Insight, and it gets 80+mpg on the highway.
Acually they increased that number to 6500 and only about 1200 have sold so far. They rest on either on their way to the States, or have even been built yet.
It's a great car too. I have one and I drive about 500 miles a week. I have saved soooo much money on gas. It's the best car I've ever owned.
I own an Insight, and I can tell you it's not as slow as you may think. I was kinda worried about that before I bought the car, but after test driving it, I quickly realized it's about as quick as a regular 4-banger. Try test driving one (if you can get your hands on one). I think you'll be plesantly surprised (as long as you don't expect a Ferrari out of it. :)
These numbers are direct from my physics prof.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Water here (in PA) is about $0.99/gallon; milk i think is about $1.30/gallon (haven't bought it in a while). How is that cheaper then $1.75/gallon, which i pay for low grade gas?
Warning: this may sound like an ad.
I understand that there are alternative fuel sources available; but they're not widespred. Yet. When they do become widespred, I'll be the first one to own them; but I don't enjoy the idea of limiting my driving radius based on location of fuel. But there's alternatives AVAILABLE TODAY - mainly, gas/electric hybrids.
They still burn gas - but they can get about three times the milage. The average milage of the Honda Insight is 65mpg (61city/70hwy)- and can get up to 90+ under the right conditions. Can you imagine going 650 miles on a tank of gas?
I'm not real sure how many other hybrids are available, but they few I've seen look pretty bad. You can get a paint job for about $100, but... and they only seem to come in two-door varieties. The MSRP w/ AC is ~US$20K, which is a little pricey. But considering gas prices around here ($1.65/gal for regular, greater D.C. area), and the current rising trend, I think it's worth it.
more about the Insight
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
Can someone answer this, perhaps with a link ? I've heard 50 years at the most.. maybe I'm wrong
Old growth forests are *not* a renewable resource to humans, we don't live long enough.
"pull my finger" - Uncle Chuckles
Any plant will cause erosion if you harvest it
Erosion:
annually, because it will leave bare soil for a significant amount of time.
To use it for fuel, you would have to harvest large amounts at a very low cost, which would mean stripping the leaves from the plant (or the plant from the ground)
Nutrient Depletion:
"nutrients are brought to the surface of the soil", they are not repleted. If hemp takes nutrients from the soil, is harvested, then burned into your engine, and pumped out your exhaust pipe, there will be a net loss of soil nutrients.
As far as chemicals go, that is all relative, depending on the area where it is grown. Hemp may be better than some other plants, but if it is grown in large enough quantities to use as vehicle fuel, fertilizer will most likely be required.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is not such a thing as a truly renewable resource, and the use of biomass fuels has never seemed like a cure-all to me. We may get a constant input of energy from the sun, but entropy is still a very strong factor. Mass will try to move to areas of lower potential energy (soil eroding downhill and into the sea), chemicals will move to simpler states (complex carbon compounds in hemp will convert to simpler compounds when burned) The sun will provide energy to create more complex compounds, but while this happens, topsoil and phosphates will wash into the ocean at greater rates than ever.
Drawbacks:
1. LARGE areas of land needed to grow sufficient hemp and/or vegetables. Even more erosion, soil nutrient depletion, and runoff contaminated by fertilizers, pesticides, etc.
2. You can hide cannabis crops in hemp field.
This is the U.S. govt's line, not mine. I'm not trying to get into an argument on drugs, etc., but that is the reason why hemp isn't grown in the U.S.
This is what scares me. Yes we will probabaly switch to some other, better energy source when the oil dries up. But then, what will we use for plastic. It seems to me that alternative energy sources are a lot more abundant that alternative plastic replacements.
It costs a hundred bucks a month in electric to keep my saltwater aquarium happy, I can only imagine if I had to recharge a car every day.
-JP
(`._(`._( , , . JimmyPop[nL] . , , )_.)_.)
But wait; you're assuming that the distillation process is run by burning part of the product for fuel. In Brazil, they burn the bagasse (the crushed sugar cane stalks) for fuel to run the distilleries. This requires none of the product.
You could go at least one better than that. Distillation doesn't require high-grade heat, anything that will boil water (or even get close) will do. You could feed all the plant stalks and such to ruminants (which convert the cellulose to sugars via the bacteria in their stomachs) and ferment their excrement to get methane. You might burn the methane to distill the alcohol, or you might just set up a big flat-plate solar collector on the side of a shed or building and use free solar heat to distill the alcohol. At a reasonable value of 400 calories per square centimeter per day, sunlight falling on a barn wall or roof could boil about 7.4 kilos of mixture per square meter of collector per day. If that mixture starts as 10% ethanol and you boil half of it in the process of driving off the alcohol as vapor, you can distill 14.8 kilos of "beer" each day and get maybe 1200 grams of ethanol, after losses. That's about 1/3 gallon per square meter per day, 30 gallons per square meter per summer, 6000 gallons per summer for a 2200 ft^2 barn covered with collectors.
The economics probably suck, but the energetics work at that point.
Or if you have a stationary engine for electrical generation, and use the waste heat to run the distillery....Your conclusion is predicated on your assumptions, which are not required. That may be how Archer Daniels Midland does it, but I think we should tell them to get lost anyway.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Hate to follow myself up but WOW... when I started writing that, there were NO comments on the page!
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Well, ok, they will for a long time. For all I know it could be as long as people are around.
Her is why...
1) Companies dealin in Oil and Gas are in, in with government, in with big money. They are here to stay.
2) Patents. They are purchased buy big money and issued by governments. Basically a suspect of corupt system.
3) Secondary market. Gas companies followers ( sometime mindless) are dealerships, can companies, independantly owned gas stations, and a number of fearful legons. The sort of people who, through greed and fear, are selling our childern's future away.
There could be more to this list, but that's the meat. Please feel free to add to it. I know it's not easy. It's like Linux vs Microsoft. At least Microsoft was asleep at the wheel during some of the battles. The oil companies will not be.
PS: I had read that all high rankig CIA agent, when leaving the CIA, had gone to work for US oil companies. I read this is a book by Jim Mars a Texas reporter and researcher. Is that true?
-- James Dornan AKA Tiger Smile
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
I live in Center City Philadelphia. When I first moved here, I had to deal with gas prices, Insurance (insurance companies are just criminals!), theft, break ins, people hitting my car when it was parked, etc.
I sold my car after the 2nd year (I have lived here for 6 years now) and haven't missed it. I take the bus, the subway, the "el" (stands for elevated train), and the trolly. When I need a car, my wife and I rent it. It is way cheaper and gets us out of the city on holiday.
It doesn't put any money in the pocket of oil companies...nor insurance robber barons! I haven't been happier. Forget oil companies...I have.
Well, that is a matter of opinion. Europe's gas prices are high because they are more inflated by taxes than in the US, the proceedes of which in turn are used to help pay for roads and the train systems. In the US we do the same thing, just not nearly as much. In both cases the gas taxes do not nearly pay for road construction, and it has to come out of general revenue. Last I hear is that in order to completely pay for the road system the US would have to raise the price of gasoline to about $9 a gallon (currently at $1.5-2 a gallon).
I'm already paying $0.50 a gallon in taxes on every gallon. Gasoline is a huge industry, and $0.50 a gallon adds up to a huge amount of money. I keep hearing the argument that it's the oil companies that are keeping new technologies from making gasoline obsolete. We live in an economy where there are ambitious individuals with billions of dollars, who would love to make billions more. I really doubt the oil industry is bribing all of them so the don't invest in alternative fuels. Most of the alternatives to gasoline have a common problem. They don't have as high of an eneryg density as you can get with gasoline. In order to give consumers the 250 to 300 mile range they want with their cars, they batteries or natural gas tanks just have to be too large. Fuel cells may be a better solution in the future, but the technology is still too expensive.
The solution of making the car smaller and lighter only works so well. Families have a lot of stuff to haul around. Those little fuel efficient, aerodynamic cars also don't do so well in rural areas where the gravel road gets 6 inch ruts in it from the rain washing it out several times a year. It's also hard to drive in snow when you're pushing snow with your bumper.
There are a lot of us that aren't going to buy a little electric car. If you're commuting in a city a little Honda Insight may be a great choice. However, if you're driving it in the mountains, it just doesn't have enough horsepower to make it up the hills (although you can recharge the batteries on the downslope).
Lets try an example. I'm going camping with some friends in West Virginia. There are four of us going along with all our camping gear. The Insight is a two seater, so we'd have to take 2. Actually, we'd probably have to take three to fit all the gear, but let's say we can do it with two. The next problem is that the 60 to 70 MPG is based on driving on relatively flat ground. You aren't going to get that in the mountains, and the weight of the gear will make it considerably worse. If you're lucky you'll get 50 MPG.
Instead of the 2 Insights, lets take 1 full sized Chevy Silverado with the extended cab. It seats 4 adults comfortably. Plenty of room for gear in the back. A cap on the back is recomended to keep the gear dry. If it's a 2WD truck you'll likely average about 25 - 26 MPG in the mountains. Since you have enough HP the hills don't hurt your MPG as badly. You also don't have that long string of cars behind you as you go up every slope at 25 MPH. You save a time (as long as your not stuck behind the guy in the Insight), and you can actually drive back the dirt road to where you're camping without getting stuck. You even get as good, if not better gas milage on average. If you go with the 4WD you likly drop a few MPG, but you can go more places, and it's a lot better on icy roads.
If you live in a city, and have a short commute, the Insight may be for you, but car pooling will likely do just as good. If you really want good gas milage, I'm sure there are motorcycles that get 70+ MPG. They're not so good in the rain, and the AC doesn't work so well in traffic jams, but if you're looking at the Insight you've already accepted that you're going to have to make some tradeoffs.
While Toyota and Honda are currently selling hybrid gas-electric cars, fuel cells are probably a more realistic long term solution. A fuel cell combines hydrogen and oxygen into water with no other significant waste product. The energy given off by that process is used to power the fuel cell. Fuel cells were used to power the Apollo spacecraft.
:) The second is H2FC.com. It's a great general reference for fuel cells.
:) Cheers.
You can check out two good web sites on fuel cells. The first is at FuelCellTalk.com and is actually a site based on SlashCode so you should be right at home
We're probably still a few years away from purchasable fuel cell vehicles. A Canadian company called Ballard Power has agreement with Ford and DaimlerChrysler to work on fuel cell vehicles.
Problems still remain in the area of hydrogen storage but we'll get those figured out
SQLTeam.com - For SQL Server developers and Administrators
Fuel cells don't generate power by combusting the alcohol fuel, so a comparison to alcohol burning internal combustion engines is irrelevant.
And just so you know, fuel cell technology can also be used to consume non-renewable resources like natural gas.
Ya might want to learn something about the subject before ya go and spout off. Just a thought.
The fact of the matter is - oil companies don't want to change the status quo. And they can collectively buy any working innovation out there to hedge against a future when we have raped the planet of oil.
Think about it - oil companies have billions of beer vouchers to invest in buying new fuel engines, and sitting on them. Think I'm paranoid? Look at the way OPEC et al are conducting themseleves recently, and you'll understand. Also, read Ben Elton's "Gridlock" for a scary ride...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
There is a good deal of shortsightedness in the asking of this questions. It's comparable to asking why more people don't get laser eye surgery done, because then they wouldn't need glasses or contacts anymore.
New (or alternate) fuel sources can be treated as new technologies. With any new technology, you have phases of acceptance:
Phase 1: Early Adopters
these are the people who are always on the bleeding edge of and industry/technology. These are the people who were online in the 80's (how many slashdotters fall into this crowd?). This is typically a very small segment of a population.
Phase 2: I forget the name of this phase...but it doesn't represent a huge increase in the user base of a product/technology. These are people who aren't as "courageous" as the early-adopters in trying bleeding edge items, they normally wait until other people have cut themselves first so they know what to look out for.
Phase 3: Mainstream (or Widespread Use). This is the majority of the populace. Important Note: There is a huge "chasm" between Phase 2 and Phase 3. Getting from Phase 2 to Phase 3 could require many things, be it massive amounts of advertising, huge investments to develop a comprehensive deployment infrastructure, etc.
Phase 4 and Phase 5 are stragglers, and not particulary important to the argument. If you were to show a graph charting these phases, It would look like a bell curve (with phase 3 in the middle, the high portion) and a large break between phase 2 and phase 3.
At the moment, alternate fuel sources to gasoline are still in Phase 1 or Phase 2. Oh well.
Currently, electric cars can be very easily powered from 100% renewable energy. Most areas in which you can buy an electric car allow you to choose your energy provider and there are several which provide very clean power. Additionally, power in general in California, where electric cars are offered is fairly clean to begin with compared to most areas.
I understand the concerns about whether we can provide enough clean power if everyone went electric, but certainly the current status is that electric cars are much cleaner than gas cars, even with the pollution of power plants factored in.
I wonder if the car market might eventually get to the stage where there won't be one dominant power source (the same way that when the computer market graduated from floppies to other removables, the market splintered and there are several major players now in that market such as Zip and LS-120 and Orb). Personally I love my EV1. I think there should always be a place for zero emissions vehicles in the market, but I doubt electric will ever become the one and only mode of powering a vehicle- perhaps just one of many popular methods as technology improves over the years.
The Prius gets about 50MPG, but at least it can seat more than 2 people. The Insight supposedly gets 60-70 but I hear it's generally less depending on how you drive.
The electric motor runs on an NiMH battery, not a fuel cell (fuel cells aren't ready for the market yet really). As much as I like to see mileage increased by these cars, I think the better hybrid would be one which is electric with enough range for 30-50 miles of driving, then can switch to gas when the electric is out. This would allow the majority of driving to be done with zero emissions (since most people don't drive more than 30-50 miles daily) and you could plug the car in at night to recharge it, but it would still be suitable for long trips and you wouldn't be dependent on a charging infrastructure. The hybrids are a step in the right direction, but the current hybrids aren't really all that much of an improvement. We can do better.
Toyota/Honda did not invent the concept of regenerative breaking. I believe the first car which used regenerative breaking is the EV1 (Toyota/Honda just use regen breaking as the _only_ way to charge the battery). If I'm wrong about who was first please correct me, but I know EV1 predates the hybrids.
Those cars aren't limited to 50MPH. In fact, I would be surprised if the hybrids had any artificial limits at all- it probably can go at least 100MPH (although tires on most cars aren't rated above 90, and people don't seem to care). My EV1 is electronically limited to 80Mph, which as far as I can see is more than reasonable for daily driving. (a modified version went as fast as 182Mph). It also goes from 0-60 in less than 8 seconds- more than suitable.
Probably the person driving that car was either distracted or they were just one of those slow drivers that are out there (and if you saw someone in a Honda Accord driving 50 on the freeway, you wouldn't blame it on the fuel).
As nice as it is to see hybrids on the market- the ones that are out now aren't even near half-electric. More like tenth-electric. The electricity the current hybrids use is very minimal. What would be really nice are hybrids that are electric enough for daily driving, and gas as a backup for long trips. Nobody's building those yet.
Here in Detroit - the motor capitol - we have virtually no public transportation. Oh yeah, a monorail that travels slowly along a 3 mile loop, and some light bussing, but those are more token gestures. With a city of a population around 1 million, you would think that there would be something to help bring all the commuters in from the suburbs.
We *had* public transportation. It was bought out and dismantled by the auto industry. Bill G didn't think of his tactics on his own, he has inspiring sources that preceded him.
This is the kind of thing that Ralph Nader and the green party are trying to push by opposing the stranglehold that large corporations have on this country. Democracy and capitalism is ceding to a corporatacracy where nobody will have a vote.
Straight from their site: http://www.votenader.com/
My next car (I don't need another right now, and I'm ready to swap) will be at least a hybrid vehicle. Much like how I choose to Linux on a daily basis - the more users, the more developers and services will be offered.
- passion
Gas should cost 6 bucks a gallon, given the harm it does.
I'm curious... what powers your beloved train? Even if you electricity, that has to be generated somewhere. Some generators do it based on renewable resources, but most just burn diesel.
- passion
He said MOTOR is 95% efficient, and engine is 17% on a good day. geez.
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
Then we started using Webvan. Now the groceries come to us. I'm starting to run out of reasons to keep the car.
Thank you for informing us Yanks what our rights are... we have been lacking that sort of insight for centuries now.
If anyone needs alternative types of fuel for cars, it's us British
How much gasoline does it take you to travel from one coast to the other on your island? Sorry for the rant (flame).
Well I hope you add in incentives from the government that cover convertign your car to it... If that $6000 quoted is anythign liek I'd have to pay to get my car converted I'd have no choice, but to keep burning gas. Heck my current car costed me a 10th of that figure...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Here at Russia, 5-7 years ago, there was a notable move to using natural gas (methane, propane, butane etc) as fuel for trucks. Motor modifications are minor, liquid gas tanks are somewhat cumbersome, but seem to fit well for trucks. (Anyway, trucks need not very good acceleration, which is unachievable with methane motor.) Methane is much cheaper than gasoline. The downside is, there's not so much refilling stations around, since building and maintaining them takes money, while 'user base' is limited to a fraction of trucks. Now, AFAIK, most of the methane-powered trucks are in rural areas and are used for short-range traffic only, where there is a number of refilling stations; long-distance trucks still use diesel fuel. Though, in some cities, majority of local buses are known to use methane/propane fuel, especially in regions where it abounds, like near oil-drilling areas.
<br>
<br>
Hey, anybody could say something about that wood-spirit powered cars in Brazil? I heard methanol fuel prevails there.
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
I am becoming annoyed at this persistent urban legend of oil companies having some super-efficient or free energy source bottled up somewhere.
Why don't you back your statements up with some links to ibm's patent server, microbarn . . . or stop posting stuff you read on the bathroom wall.
I agree that we love our cars. I would never get rid of mine - like many people I enjoy the freedom it provides.
However, if taking public transportation was faster and cheaper, rather than slower and more expensive, I would absolutely take it to work every day. And that would cover %80-%90 of my driving. Still a tremendous improvement.
And yes, I agree that there is not a tremendous amount of interest in public transportation. But I feel that a lot of this is due to the overall crappiness of many public transportation systems. Where are our bullet trains damnit?
Trying to convince people to get excited about a crummy system rather than trying to fix the crummy system is silly. People like the original poster should be trying to improve the system to attract people to it.
cot
"I knew you'd be on foot, because you always say public transportation is for losers"
It seems to me that the blame for the continued use of gasoline as a fuel shouldn't fall solely on the general public.
Look, you can never expect people to do what is right only on moral grounds. It doesn't work like that. If it is inconvenient, expensive, and a general pain in the ass, we would prefer to avoid it. And if the only down side is that we need to rationalize away a bit of guilt over doing the wrong thing, we'll do it.
You sound like those people that want everyone to switch to public transportation. Hey, I'd be glad to, if it were more convenient. I'm not going to take more than twice as long to get to work each day, as well as spending MORE money (BARTs overpriced), just to feel all warm and fuzzy about it. The solution to this is not to make driving less attractive (higher gas tax, etc.) but to make public transportation more attractive to people.
And it's the same with alternative fuel usage. Don't try to guilt people into doing it, you're wasting your time. And don't join in with those who feel higher gasoline prices are the answer (-ahem- Gore). MAKE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS MORE ATTRACTIVE AND PEOPLE WILL START TO USE THEM. It's that simple. If it's easy and cheap, people will be all over it.
When i visit my parents in CT, however, you can't do a thing without a car. Now, of course, people outside of cities *could* constrcut decent mass transit, but they don't, and that's fine
I've love it if I could catch a bus or train from my old house to Eugene or Portland (OR) [I'm living in Baltimore now]. However, living in [actually 4 miles away from] a town with ~600 people, that quite simply is not happening. It's not a choice, it's economic reality. The large cost [garages, busses, you need a whole infrastructure] wouldn't justify the relatively few people who would use it (unless the entire town took off for Portland every weekend, which of course is not likely).
That isn't true for a lot of places (suburbs, for instance, where I think they should have public transit), but don't generalize so much. s/outside of cities/in suburbs/, and I'll agree with what your saying, but it's not the case that people live in either a city or a suburb.
Umm... no... read his list. Hydrogen, gasoline, or the number of other possiblities. You use a device called, IIRC, a reformer. This converts the substance -in vehicle- into a hydrogen rich compound that can be processed in the fuel cell, combined with oxgen, and the electricity captured. The reformer, naturally, takes less energy to run than the fuel cell produces (otherwise the process wouldn't be useful). With a sufficiently advanced reformer, you can produce a vehicle that will take, for example, any liquid hydrocarbon based fuel. Gasoline, methanol, whiskey, whatever.
The current gas tanks are bombs, but swapping that out for a pressurized, flammible liquid filled tank wouldn't make me feel better.
Fuel cells seem to be the way to go, but until there are filling stations everywhere including the back woods, it's going to be seriously hard to get people to switch.
It seems the easiest way would be to build a transitional generation of cars that had fuel cells that ran on standard gas, but could also run on whatever the high energy brew of the future is. Then as gas stations transitioned to the new fuel, there wouldn't be dead cars sitting around looking for the right fuel.
Sheldon
What I want to know is why do small aircraft still use leaded gas.
/.
I'm a pilot, not a chemical engineer. That being said, the main reason is, all the enignes are designed to run on leaded fuel. No problem, you say, just design them to run on unleaded. Well, no. First off, you can't just put any old engine into an airplane. You must get FAA certification of said engine at a cost of many tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. The two engine manufacturers who make almost all of the engines used in light airplanes save money by essentialy making small, incremental changes to the engines and reducing the certification burden by claiming similarity. So making a new engine that runs on unleaded is difficult from a certification basis. (this is the same reason aircraft engines use fixed-timing magnetos and electronic spark control is only now barely beginning to be seen. Cessna wanted to use electronic ignition on the new 172, but Lycoming couldn't get approval from the feds.)
Second, one of the more popular engines, the Lycoming O-360, has a 361 cubic inch displacement, and produces (in it's most common variant) 180 horsepower at 2700 rpm. This means a big bore. I'm also told this means a very high octane rating. The most common fuel used is 100LL, (100 octane Low Lead). I'm told you can't get 100 octane out of unleaded fuel. Some smaller engines that will run on 80/87 have been converted for auto gas use, but again, they are designed for leaded fuel. Larger engines can produce in excess of 300 hp, also at 2700 RPM.
Third, these engines must produce power up to about 30,000' in a turbo-charged installation, and up to 20,000' in a non-turbo-charged installation. In some turbo installations, 37"Hg of manifold pressure (or more) is allowed to be used at sea level. Again, I believe that the higher octane disussed previously is needed to produce power up in the rare air. and the higher manifold pressures.
All this being said, there are installations in experimental airplanes using off-the shelf, unleaded fuel buring, Honda car engines, mated to a gearbox, or belt-driven reduction system. The Honda engine doesn't deliver anywhere near peak power at any kind of appropriate RPM. Propellers need to spin fairly slowly (generally less than 3000 rpm for any decent size propeller) to avoid the tips going supersonic. Losses in gearboxes and other reduction systems rob power from the propeller.
Aviation fuel is glorified gasoline, but it has higher quality standards than auto gas. It's refined completely seperately from auto gas. So little avgas is made, it would be horribly expensive to change refineries over, or build new refineries. Some work is also being done with essentially diesel engines. These engines would probably burn jet fuel (glorified kerosene) because it is already being made. No new process. Jet fuel is also safer from an explosion point of view, but it's much harder on your body if it spills on you.
Jet and turbo-prop engine are currently far too expensive to use in small aircraft. And there are operational considerations, as well. Non-turbo-charged piston engines are pretty bullet-proof. Turbines can easily be damanged in starting, and one must pay closer attention to them in operation.
Finally, a subject I know a little bit about on
Merde, il pleut encore!
Really? So ethanol is a solid until -114C?
Yup... -114C is pretty darn cold anyway...
My point was just that jlcooke shouldn't worry about his ethanol freezing at -20C..
(as long as it's pure ethanol, but I have no idea what the ethanol used as car fuel might be mixed with)
Tip: Sick and tired of these tips? Type "set tips 0" any time.
> set tips 0
Ner lbh sebz gur HFN? Gura lbh'ir whfg ivbyngrq gur QZPN!
Ethanol melts at -114.1C, boils at 78.5C
Tip: Sick and tired of these tips? Type "set tips 0" any time.
> set tips 0
Ner lbh sebz gur HFN? Gura lbh'ir whfg ivbyngrq gur QZPN!
There are research efforts to create a Fuel Cell powered vehicle capable of using gasoline as a fuel. From what I understand a processor will create methane and/or hydrogen from the gasoline to feed the fuel cell.
The goal is to make a flexible-fuel processor that works with many different hydrogen-rich fuels. More can be found here:
http://www.ott.doe.gov/oaat/gtfuel.htmlhttp://www.daimler chrysler.de/index_e.htm?/news/top/t90317_e.htm
http://www.williamsinference.com/2420 fuel.htm
Well if I was in the UK I would bitch also. But you have to keep in mind, that the in the UK you get alot more social programs than we have in the US, I may be mistaken but I guess that your fuel is very havely taxed to pay for these programs. Also I would assume that your overall cost of living is higher than in the US. Thus if you where to make both of these factors equal fuel prices would be about the same. I wish diesel was more popular here in the US, it is much more effenict that gas engines, but the only to get a diesel here in the US is to buy at least a 3/4 ton truck. I wish we could get smaller veichels with diesel engines. That way I could have a small truck that gets 30 to 40 mpg.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
What's happening is the Oil companies are buying up the new technology/new energy patents. The patents have a life of 10 years and what they do is sit on them and not do any research so there won't be any advancement. With the new enery patents locked up, other people have their hands tied. They have a room full of lawyers and people ever on the alert to patents that would threaten their livelihood and they use their money and influence to buy out new technology. As a PR note, they occasionally pull out a technology to highlight how they're "ever searching for new energy sources".
A few issues back, they had an article on new energy sources and then a column on all the technology patents that the oil companies own and are sitting on. Oil is a consumable resource. They don't want an energy resource that they can charge for again and again. That would solve the world's problems and put them out of the immediate business. They don't want to have to think intelligently.
I live about 20 miles away from work. It takes me
:P
about an hour to drive this. Biking would take
about 3 hours, due to traffic and everything...
there are no good bike routes here, and lots of
cross streets and traffic. I'm at work 9 hours
(8 hours plus lunch, which I usually work through
anyway). 9hr work+3 hour commute here+3 hr commute
back+1/2 hr prep time+8hr sleep=23.5hrs. That
leaves me 1/2 hour after work for dinner and time
to myself. Plenty of time!
Oddly enough, going with public transit would take
3 hours as well, with all the bus transfers I would need to do.
Those extra 4 hours a day are _important_ to me.
I'll continue to drive.
I wish those electric or hybrid cars were cheaper,
though!
Cars are good...
a) Public transporation sux - i like my privacy
and i hate sitting next to YOU!
I spent over half of my life in Russia - country
where you basically have no choice but to use
public transportation. I live in NYC where i
must use subway. I hate both - stinky sweaty
people closer then 10 ft away are downright
disgusting.
b) There are no reliable technologies that can
work in a vehicle at this point and use something
readily available.
1) Hydrogen - well, you have to
produce a fucking hydrogen and it requires LOTS
of electricity. And electricity requires lots
of oil or coal to be used - and in fact
calculations show that with a low energy/work
ratio this sort of engine is more polluting eventually.
And no, those bacteria still cannot
produce enough hydrogen to even blow up a
birthday baloon.
2) Ergo for electric cars - and on top of that
you have to drive with a speed of under 50mph
and lug half-ton container filled with dangerous
and environmentally unsafe acids.
3) Fuel cells - well, they just plain don't
work yet...also see hydrogen above.
4) Natural gas - it is all good but there arent
so much resources and it is dangerous to
store and transport - more so then fuel since
it must be stored under high pressure. There
isnt a good solution for refueling with it either.
So yes - until we find something radical -
regular fuel and combustion engine are the
only way - and we must improve the mpg - that
much is true.
But then again - if YOU use the bus - there
is one less person on the highway so i can
drive a little easier.
I've never seen a gasoline engine thats 95% efficent
Apparently neither has he. He said "While good motor with a good controller can give you close to 95% efficiency" (my emphasis).
Realize that motor != engine.
-- Freedom means letting other people do things you don't like.
The real reason gasoline was forced as the fuel of choice in the first place was the petroleum industries leveraging and the govt interests in control.
You see anybody and their mother can grow hemp for industrial use. (Fuel derivatives being one of them)
And so went the mind warping of America to convince people that we were besigned by the evil 'marijuana' plant, the same plant in wide spread use by people since the country was formed. Note that Hemp and 'pot' are similar, but you can't get high off Hemp. Yet still the powers that be had Hemp thrown in the same pile, and it was effectivly band
Of course history shows the driving forces behind the effective banning of hemp were the petroleum and paper (that motherfucker Hearst) industries.
FACT: The diesel engine was *first* designed to run on hemp oil.
IMAGINE: The entire trucking industry using a locally reproducable, economical, enviromentally neutral fuel.
IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, but the aristocracy decided against this for you.
Get my gun...
Don't forget that a catalytic converter uses as much as 6 ounces of platnum as it's catylist.
<This .sig left intentionally blank>
In Holland, gas oil (Super Plus) is doing more
than 4.60 USD/gallon and still rising...
The biggest, easiest pools in the US were drained years ago, leaving smaller and/or more technologically-intensive reservoirs. E.g., deepwater GOM oil costs ~$10/bbl to produce, while Arabian light out of the Persian gulf costs less than $5 to produce and deliver to the US.
Robert Q. Riley did a book a couple of years ago, _Alternative Vehicles for the 21st Century_. He delves into various alternative fuels as well:
Methanol: All the alcohols don't get as good of milage because of the oxygen in the fuel. In addition, methanol is hell on seals and is a bit rough on ferrous metals. It's also a bit more toxic than gasoline. (Avoid skin contact...) Burns clean, could possibly be used in existing delivery systems.
Ethanol: Similar problems in economy, plus you get the tradeoff: food or fuel.
Propane: Filling is a bit of a hassle. Pretty good fuel.
Compressed Natural Gas: "Low pressure" systems run at pressures of a few hundred PSI, while high pressure systems run a couple thousand PSI. Either case, the fuel tank is quite a bit more involved than for gasoline.
Electricity: Pure battery solutions have a major weight penalty, and the charging situation is spotty. (He didn't mention possible electricity shortages as a downside, but I'm wondering if these could come abgout in some cities, like San Jose. Brownout city...) BTW, San Jose encourages large employers to provide charging stations for electric cars. Right now, one person is using a charger, but the other 3 are unused.
Gasoline/alcohol blends: Mainly a matter of reprogramming/retuning the cars. Still have the seal problem with methanol mixes, and the big agribiz firms are salivating at selling a lot of ethanol. Riley's bet for the future fuel--maybe 15% alcohol to start, working upwards, to a possible max of 85%.
Fuel/electric hybrids: promising. You have an engine that can be optimized for one speed and mild load variations (nirvana for a fuel systems designer). Electrically, it's hairy, but in my experience, they've been tackling this problem since at least 1970. We're making progress.
BTW, Riley proposes a couple of classes of minicars for strictly urban and commuter apps. The commuter cars tend to be faster, but both are small. The urban cars can be electric or gas/electric, while the commuter wants fuel.
Moderate this up this guy knows of what he speaks.
Yes, that is why we would first need to shut down the coal plants and open up nuclear(fission) plants in its place. Emission free and if we use waste reprocessing, completely renewable.
Plastic can be recycled.
I'm sorry for being to Katzian in my obviousness. But the major barriers to breakthroughs in efficient fuel technology is that our infrastructure is designed to get gasoline into cars. Not pig farts.
Refill stations don't want to install pumps, and pay for fuel that won't be used. Everybody is waiting for the next guy to eat the cost of making this stuff popular.
And in America, there is no market for it. Gas is cheap, a lot cheaper then a lot of other places. Simply put, we like our loud hot-rods. And we're not quick to trade them in for some electric car who's 0-60 is counted in minutes, not seconds.
Honestly, I think the governments of the world need to pour more research into integrating altenative fuels, and less into building bigger super computers crunching nuclear bomb test numbers for a war which will never happen.
Ever since the EPA put out new regulations governing the storage of aircraft fuel underground, we're going to see small aircraft using jet fuel soon.
And now, I'm not suggesting they're going to have jet engines. Jet fuel is very close to kerosene (aka diesel). And they've developed ignitionless aircraft engines designed to use the same fuel jets use. Only one problem,... heat.
You see, small aircraft engines are air cooled. I mean, they better be with all of the air coming at them. But when you get the extreme compressions of diesel into a small engine, you're forced to use liquid cooling. Thus requiring more equipment, thus more weight.
Sad part is, the aircraft industry is putting the most research into alternative fuels,... and will probably b the last to implement them.
I'm not usually one to cry conspiracy with stuff like this, but I'm afraid that's the case. Back when carburators were used primarily instead of fuel injectors, there were carburators that were capable a achieving 200 mpg. This would have obviously hurt the oil industry, so it was quickly put under wraps. The problem with gasoline engines is that when the fuel injectors or carburators spray fuel to be combusted, they spray the fuel is large (relative) drops. If the spray was a much finer mist, it would burn faster and produce higher effeciency in the engine. With the large drops, the fuel burns more slowly and some of the gas is wasted completely because it fails to burn completely. Conspiracy my friend, conspiracy.
Furthermore, gasoline (or diesel) is not necessarily a lifestyle choice. How do you think farmers plow their fields? With teams of oxen or horses? Generally, (with exceptions for the Amish and others) the answer is no. They do so with tractors - which use FUEL. How would you provide for the planting, tending, and harvesting of America's farm land, which not only provides crops for us, but for the world as well? (When crops aren't rotting in silos - but that's another issue.)
And, on a semi-separate note, why should I be forced to live in areas that have mass transit? I like the fields and the forests around me. I like being able to actually see the Milky Way at night. I loved the small, agricultural community I grew up in, and I would not choose to abandon it, but then again, unlike many of my farmer neighbors, I can afford that luxury even in the face of fuel costs.
I'll gladly pay $5 a gallon of gas just so I can laugh at the gas guzzeling SUV owners of the city, most who don't even use the thing for anything you might really need an SUV for, as they'll pay $200 to fill up their tank.. while my 40 miles per gallon car takes a fraction of that.
And $4 bucks going to public transportation isn't a bad idea either.
Cars are monkey machines. If owning one contributes to your sense of identity, you have some screwed up sense of self.
Chrysler advocated a gasoline fuel cell several years ago. Essential the reaction is the same but the gas is broken down to more base compounds first. Its what provides the power so coupled with the motor it would effectively form the "engine". Its not exactly a battery substitute since it produces electricity, it does not store it. To my knowledge the Chrysler design did not use a battery, the fuel cell just worked harder when you "hit the gas."
The battery buffer is the problem since even a small one still weights several hundred pounds and will suffer from the same problems I mentioned with hybrid cars.
By electric vehicle I meant something that was purely electric, i.e. was plugged into the wall and run off batteries. Anything else is some sort of hybrid.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
Actually most things follow a bell-shaped efficiency curve. However power plants are probably scaled so that each generator is at the top of the bell so you are probably right.
As for the consistently generate moderate amounts of power comment, this is exactly what hybrid cars do to increase efficiency.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
What pressure/temperature are these figures at since methane is a gas at room temperature? Its fine if methane has slightly more power per pound, but it it takes five times more space to store it then its not worth it.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
the feul you want is nitro-methane, its a safe, natural gas that is what they use in things like models and race cars because the engines that use it can handle a huge number of revolutions per minute. in addition it is cheap, safe, (hard to catch on fire, and ecologically more sound than fossil fuels). we should use this, it would be a small task of dumbing down racing engines to work for the general public.
Actually coal power releases more radioactivity than Nuclear power in the united states. Coal has trace amounts of uranium and other radioactive elements in it, and when it gets burned it goes right into the atmosphere in a nice breathable aerosol form. If you live next door to a nuclear power plant at sea level, you are exposed to the same amount of radiation as the people of Denver (denver has less atmosphere to block out solar radiation, cosmic rays etc.) I dont see the people of denver keeling over from radiation sickness. All the 'waste' from all the reactors in the united states that have ever run would fill a football feild about 3 feet deep with waste. Worst of all, this so called waste could be reprocessed for use in a fast breeder reactor and used over and over again until everything is converted into energy and elements that have a half life of weeks instead of tens of thousands of years. The only reason we dont do this is because Nuclear power is unpopular, and if we do it, the logic goes, then nuclear weapons will proliferate, beccause an intermediate form of fuel in a fast breeder is plutonium. People can be so stupid when theres a beautiful and elegant engineering solution right in front of their noses, like fuel cells. ok enough ranting, we now return you to your regularly scheduled program, already over.....
Other than people trying to drink the fuel. Thats also the main reson we dont have alchohol fuel. One for my homies, one for me, and one for my car ;-)
I have a dual LPG/Gasoline car. When I use it
with LPG I lose 20 HP (respect the 135 HP with gasoline). The LPG tank have to be retrofitted but
taxes on LPG are lower than the one on gasoline
in Italy.
There are also some cars that are equipped in factory with Methane tanks.
So the alternative is feasible, and works well,
of course you have to make some maintenance,
and you can't park (with LPG) in underground parkings.
I'd just run the engine all day, sniffing the exhaust...
That's right. It's still polluting. But a lot less. These are pretty impressive vehicles, if they work.
Do you know how subsidised mass tranist is? If we were all to switch to mass transit, 1) the subsidies would have to be increased 2) the decrease in gas purchases would lower the taxs received to pay for the roads that the busses drive and damage more than the cars 3) the average commute time would triple. I say think it through a little longer. Nate Baxley
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
1. Power/Mass: Gasoline has a high co-efficient of potential energy per its volume & mass
2. Cost: Despite recent events, Gasoline and its derivatives (Diesel) are still very inexpensive
3. Distriubution Infrastructure: You can buy gasoline safely almost anywhere. There are agencies to regulate the purity, measurement and safety of each distribution station.
Note that many alternative fuels have promise, but lack in one or more of these areas. Electricity is cheap and available (2 & 3), but the power/mass ratio sucks with current battery technology. (1) Hydrogen has plenty of power and would be cheap (1 & 2), but lacks an available & safe storage & distribution system.
I'm holding out for hydrogen and natural gas, but here in Iowa we're doing just fine on high-percentage Ethanol blends. If you've ever been here, you know the entire state is covered in corn, and that makes for a plentiful, renewable and clean fuel alternative. J.
Information wants to be Free. Useful Information will cost you.
ABCNews ran a story last week on TV of an air-powered car built in France that could get up to 70 miles per hour. It still only had a range of 120-150 miles though.
Basically all you have to fill up is a pressurized air tank and most gas stations have this anyway for tires. According to the story the only waste from the process was pure air and power was generated during an air temperature change which moved a piston.
If anyone knows where to find more info please let me know...
scott@figital.com
I'd like to add that gas isn't really that much more expensive if you put some perspective on it. We are just spoiled so everyone is complaining. Has anyone in the US experienced even a doubling in price? I'm sure if the price went up to 5 or 10 dollars per gallon for a couple years, the demand would become elastic. I know my gas consumption would go way down.
It is possible to take damn near any existing electrical motor, add a few parts, and turn it into a generator that runs itself without any fuel. You just give it a spin and it runs forever. But guess what happens when someone tries to patent such a device? The patent office replies, "Oh. That, by definition, is a perpetual motion machine. We can't give patents on those. Sorry." They don't even bother testing the patent's claims, or try building one themselves, or even let the guy demonstrate it... they just refuse to patent it and move on
It is not the patent office's job to test if an invention works only if it is original. The exception is that they will not approve perpetual motion machines because they don't want thousands of crackpots saying ``look the patent office approved my design so it must work''.
Do not simply see the phrase "perpetual motion machine" in this post and scoff immediately. Science and physics doesn't even know what magnetism or gravity is,
And I suppose you do?
yet it claims to be able to state with absolute certainty that perpetual motions machines are impossible?? The sheer arrogance is staggering. "Yes, well, we realize we only understand about 0.01% of how the universe works, but we know you can't have perpetual motion. It's just preposterous." Give me a break.
Few scientists say that perpetual motion machine are absolutely impossible. What they do say is that there has never be a repeatable experiment that demonstrated it. The law of conservation of energy has been tested so many times (and found to always hold true) that machines that claim to violate it should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism.
`The usual rejoinder to someone who says "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Galileo" is to say "But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown".' (From Carl Sagan, "Broca's Brain", Coronet 1980, p79).
How far would we have gotten if Columbus had just believed what the scientists told him without question instead of being brave and intelligent enough to go find out on his own?
I can't believe that there are still people who think that Columbus was right and scientists of his time were wrong.
It was well known at the time that the earth was round (and the size was pretty well known as well). Columbus, however, thought that the world was much smaller than the scientists of the time and that it would be possible to sail west to the Indies. He was wrong, it was only luck that America happened to be in the way.
I was going to deal with your arguments for the existance of free energy machines. But then I realised that you didn't present any.
The sci.sceptic FAQ section on perpetual motion machines is well worth reading (as is the whole thing actually). This is from section 8 (on free energy machines):
In other words: Put up or shut up.For everyone who complains about gas prices, here's some fuel (pun not intended) for thought:
Think about how much you pay for:
1 gallon of gas
a 12 oz bottle of Coke/Pepsi/etc
a pint of beer (mmmm, beer)
a 12 oz bottle of WATER! (I've seen these things go for $4 at a sports event)
and so on...
Now I don't like high gas prices any more than anyone else, but compared with the cost of the sixer of beer I intend to drink tonight, it doesn't seem quite so bad. I remember being really pissed off when the gas in my area passed $1/gallon, but then somebody pointed this out to me, and it really doesn't bother me that much anymore.
The reformers can also be designed to produce a solid waste that can then be delivered to a chemical extraction faciity. No air pollution.
- AndrewN
Another site about hypercars that has useful information.
The good thing about a hypercar is that the economics of it will eventually force the switch away from conventinal cars.
- AndrewN
So, you suggest to live in a small apartment in the inner city shared with cockroaches (well, they don't take care whose property they're on) instead of a nice country home? Stand in a noisy and dirty metro car (and taking part in the Perspiration Contest) instead of the nice cab of my pickup truck? Walk to the above train or bus under cold rain or snow every day? See the moronic graffiti on the gray wall of the building on the opposite side of the street instead of the lawn and trees from my window? And pay $2000+ for all the aforementioned crap? The traffic jams and long commutes aren't caused by lots of cars on the road. They're caused instead by: 1) Concentration of businesses in downtown areas. Completely unnecessary in our time thanks to phone, fax and Internet. 2) Bad road alignment that don't follow the commuting patterns. Combined with lack of new roads in the fast developing areas. 4) Bad road design (entrance/exit combinations etc.) Responsible for most bottlenecks to my best knowledge. 5) Lack of garages and parking space in cities. Result is streets narrowed by parallel parking. Mass transit is simply a return to caves. Please look at 1) Terrible comfort level. 2) Very low fuel/energy efficiency (per capita) 3) Crime generator. 4) A reservoir of airborne infection. 5) Very costly
I was recently shopping for a minivan. The wife wanted a particular Mazda model. The official line from the dealer was "Ask Mazda Canada". The official line from Mazda Canada was "That would void your warranty. We cannot recommend any alternate fuels other than a methanol blend up to (I forget whether 5 or 10%)."
Methane takes a large fairly heavy tank. Many parkades refuse to allow entry to methane (collects invisibly among ceiling beams) or propane (collects invisibly downwards).Hydrogen may never solve the tanking issues.
People will buy what's widely available. In my jurisdiction, both methane and propane are adequately available at gas stations. But the cars aren't ready for it yet.
...are you going to have two engines? A hydrogen engine and a gasoline engine for fallback when hydrogen isn't available?
Well, you could use a gas/electric hybrid which are not in great use yet but, I heard that they are supposed to get something like 70mpg.
Hmmm. Try this. The demo looks cool, though it's a windows-only app and requires Matlab and some Simulink program. I know there's Octave but I don't know what Simulink is or if there is a free replacement for *nix for it.
------------
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
As I understand, cannibis doesn't stand a chance when growing in a hemp field because hemp is so greedy for nutrients/resources and is also a lot taller than cannibis, so it blocks the sunlight. Trying to hide cannibis in a hemp field would then result in lots of dead, starved cannibis.
Whether you burn gas in your car or coal in the power plant, you're still reliant on the fossil fuels. The advantage with generating the energy in plants is that the pollution is concentrated in one area. It's the same principle that says cities are less environmentally damaging than suburban sprawl, per capita.
John
Actually I think they went with gas instead of alcohol because they wanted to drink the alcohol :) and didn't want to waste it in a car.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Wow! these are pretty cool, and a 3 minute fill up at a sevice station is awesome and a decent range. I wouldn't mind one of these, I wonder when they'll start focusing on the consumer market, not the taxi/delivery van market.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Search Google for solar electrolysis. Follow links. Learn.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
The distinction is that efficiency is measure by the formula eff = WORK_DONE/HEAT_INPUT
and not eff != HEAT_TRANSFERED/HEAT_INPUT (which is what most people tend to think).
Hmmm....This Geologist turned computer geek is willing to capitulate. I'm guilty of thinking about the individual heat exchanger, and not multiple stages of heat exchange. However... Going back to one of your earlier posts, you stated that power plant effeciency was maxed out around 40%. I claimed 10% possibly recoverable, you claim 20% under certain conditions. This stregthens my assertation that there's still research and improvements to be made in power plant design. :-)
So if we use electric cars AND we have a coal-burning power plant as our source
Uggg... Sorry... West coast lifer here. The only coal fired power plants I've seen are on TV. I think there's one near the Grand Canyon, but that's 1000+ miles away, and I've never been there. No arguments from me though... Coal == Bad. Unfortunately, there isn't a good alternative for much of the country. Solar panels are not likely to contribute significantly any time soon.
Cheers, and thanks for the thermo refresher!
Temkin
My prediction on the "breakthrough" needed : a theoretical understanding of how convection works.
Last post honest....
I was reading somewhere last year that someone holds a patent on a mixed fluid process. I believe it was water and ammonia. The plant ran in the same sense of heat -> superheat -> extract work -> reheat -> extract work -> condense, at which point, the ammonia became superheated by the latent heat of vaporization from the condensing water, the two seperate, and the ammonia goes through one more turbine before getting reintroduced to the water and going back to the boiler. The problem being, try building a powerplant/turbine that can work off of "wet" ammonia vapor, with a pH greater than 10. Superheated steam is corrosive enough without adding a strong base. I remember thinking at the time that this problem might be solved by using some form of designer water soluble fluorocarbon (fluoronated alcohol?) in place of the ammonia.
Cheers,
Temkin
As an SUV hater (and a vegetarian :)
For the record, I don't have a problem with vegetarians... just fanatical vegans. For those that don't understand the difference, a vegetarian doesn't eat meat. A vegan doesn't eat anything that was animal derived. No milk, cheese, eggs, etc... They're the fanatical religious fringe, that tends to get involved with illegal forms of activism such as cutting down ranchers fences.
The insurance industry needs to start charging an INSANE amount of money for covering urban commuters with SUVs
The problem being, there's no legal mechanism that allows for regulation with this kind of granularity. Back in the early 80's, they made all gas stations put vapor return nozzles on their pumps in California. Great idea for urban areas. But out in the sticks... The gas station near my family's ranch sit adjacent to something like 40000 acres of fir trees. You can bet those trees put out several orders of magnitude more hydrocarbons (turpentine from the pitch) than the gas station. There used to be 4 gas stations... The mom and pop places folded due to the cost of converting the pumps, leaving the one big corperate owned station. But that didn't matter one bit to the urban people that supported those regulations. I could go on and on with similar examples of urban voters screwing over rural folks with dumb regulations. Don't get me started about moutain lion & coyote hunting restrictions. Suffice to say, I haven't seen a deer on our property in almost 5 years, and I don't walk in the woods without a pistol.
the majority of new cars sold in the US are SUVs
Some power-hungry fringe of society would like you to believe this. Really. The thing about statistics is, they're really easy to lie with. You see, SUV's are lumped in with light-trucks. So if Joe's construction company buy's a fleet Ford F-350 pickup trucks, they get counted in with the people buying RAV4's. Now really, do you think a RAV4 and a 6500lb. F-350 belong in the same class of vehicle? Of course not. They're lumped together because they serve someone's political agenda. Sort of like the dead 17-year old drug dealing gang member is a "child killed by handguns". Yea... sure. Think for yourself man... Don't be one of the "sheeple".
No doubt, SUV's have risen in popularity. But it's because the compact cars being sold today, are just not utilitarian enough. Try fitting 2 adults, 4 kids and a two soccer nets into a honda accord. It doesn't work. You can do it in a minivan, but you'll find that the minivan has many of the same problems the SUV does, and they're not cheap. So it comes down to two choices... Uncool minivan that can crush a sub-compact, or a trendy SUV that can crush a sub-compact. If you're going to make decisions for people, please remember to wear the brown shirt with arm band, and the jack boots.
Also... Suppose I didn't spend the extra $10K on the SUV. I'd have spent it on something else, like most people. The cost of whatever I did buy would then get adjusted upwards due to demand. So Ford soaked me for $10K extra on a Expedition. That means they can sell 5 sub-compact Focus models at a $2000 loss, making those vehicles easier to afford for those that don't make my obcene hi-tech salary. It's welfare for capitalism. They will sell those sub-compacts at a loss to make them more attractive and keep their EPA CAFE figures in line.
I leave you with one more thought... I've been driving for 15 years. I have never caused an accident. My one speeding ticket was 14 years ago, given to me for driving a 40hp VW bug too fast, not a SUV. I've been in two accidents, both times I was rear ended while driving a pickup truck. Both times, I walked away. Both times, the insurance company had to replace my bumper at a cost of less than $500. Both times, the vehicle at fault was totalled out at a cost of more than $10,000.
Now... You want to explain to me again why I'm a high risk, and need to pay more?
Temkin
It's all well and good to be angry that gas prices (or any fuel for that matter) are high. But before we search for another fuel due to price we really should look at what I think are the two most pressing issues: sustainability and environmental effect.
Sustainability is pretty much out of the question for oil based fuels, recent estimates put us at about 2 to 3 decades more of oil use before finding more oil becomes prohibitively expensive. These estimates are from various scientific journals (mostly Science, and ChemTech I think), I did a report on this topic not too long ago and don't have my references handy.
Environmentally we can rule out quite a few fuels if our goal is to improve upon gasoline. Most of the big ones (methanol, ethanol, propane) would seem like they're cleaner, but in fact their use is either as bad or worse than gasoline due to evaporation and the differences of the way they are combusted, etc. I grant that we can improve the use of such fuels, but then we turn to their sustainability. As fas as I know the greatest abundance of fuel found in nature (besides solar/wind/hydro) is natural gas. My research into estimates of the size of natural gas reserves came up with a lot of different numbers, but even the most promising estimate (~2500 trillion cubic feet worldwide) wasn't all that promising considering the US _right now_ consumes ~21 trillion cubic feet per year. That number would of course increase due to wider use over gasoline. So we have maybe a century of natural gas use before the same problem crops up. And we haven't considered issues such as infrastructure and feasibility of widespread natural gas use, where there are plenty of problems yet to be solved. One example is that natural gas must be made into a liquid for efficient transport from production facilities, and this (as fas as I know) hasn't been done well and/or cheaply yet. The problems of sustainability and cost are the same or worse for ethanol, propane, etc.
The most likely options for environmental and sustainable 'goodness' are solar or wind, hydro isn't the favorite of a lot of people due to direct/indirect environmental effects. Thankfully there's a lot of work being done on solar/wind power, and it's use is becoming more widespread each day (my local utility, in the Bay Area, now offers "green power" based on sustainable fuels, which if I remember correctly are solar/wind). Then of course there's that hocus-pocus fusion, which needs to get over the strife that (reportedly) exists between researchers divided by the two major methods of plasma containment.
So anyways, keep the big picture in mind, we've got limited money to spend on replacing gasoline, and I don't want to hear about it being spent on fuel X that will only last another 40 years.
Probably the best passenger car diesels available in the US are the current-production VW TDI models. There isn't much unusual from the driver's perspective--wait a few seconds (if needed) for the glow plugs to turn off before starting, and be sure to use diesel fuel instead of gas when you fill up. They aren't particularly noisy, smelly, or smoky. They have plenty of power--they aren't race cars by any stretch of the imagination, but they accelerate pretty well, and they hold speed through the mountains with no trouble at all. They also get in the neighborhood of 50 mpg. With the way fuel prices were here (Dayton, OH) last week, my Jetta TDI would cost less in fuel than a Honda Insight, though the gas prices have since dropped a little.
Another alternative to petroleum-based diesel is biodiesel, which has already been mentioned here a bit. It can be made from vegetable oil, and will work in any diesel engine. Currently, commercially-available biodiesel is more expensive than petrodiesel in the USA, but it's a potential option.
I'd go you 25% efficent, but thats it...
"Relative to electric motor, internal combustion engine (ICE) is highly inefficient. While good motor with a good controller can give you close to 95% efficiency, an ICE is at 17% in a good day. Worse it's peak efficiency is at certain torque and at certain speed. That is why we have gearbox system and clutch. When the car stops, you have supply it with some fuel to keep spinning (idling) which is 100% loss (0% efficient). With electric motor you can adjust your torque and speed electrically and reclaim energy in braking.
Also while we were building america's highways, we weren't building america's railway system (in fact we were tearing it up...). America's economy is really centered around cheap fuel prices. Were screwed if all the oil goes away.
" Gasoline and the US Mail are the best deals around. Shut your collective pie holes. Gas is pumped out of the ground, shipped across the planet, refined, and sold for about the same price as water, which last I checked, fell from the sky"
Actually, a hydrogen-driven vehicle is far, far safer than a gasoline powered vehicle, according to the following information from Fuelcells.org:
With regards to the probability of a rupture of the hydrogen storage tank, Pg 30: "Each tank is tested at 1.5 times its rated operating pressure, and samples from each lot are pressure tested to failure. Each tank design must be qualified at 2.25 times normal operating pressure. Each class of tank is also subjected to gunfire and must not explode but leak only through the bullet-hole." (Try doing that to a gasoline tank!)
Pg xi: "In a collision in open spaces, a safety-engineered hydrogen FCV shound have less potential hazard than either a natural gas vehicle or a gasoline vehicle due to four factors. First, carbon fiber wrapped composite storage tanks (the leading high pressure storage tank material due to its low weight) are able to withstand greater impacts than the vehicle itself without rupture, thereby minimizing the risks of a large release of hydrogen as a result of a collision. Second, hydrogen, if released, disperses much faster than gasoline due to much greater buoyancy, reducing the risks of a post-collision fire. Third, the FCV will carry 60% less total energy than a gasoline or natural gas vehicle, resulting in less potential hazard should it ignite. Finally, the design recommended here includes an inertially activated switch in each FCV that, in the event of a collision, will simultaneously shut off the flow of hydrogen via a slenoid valve or valves, and will cut electrical power from the battery."
Pg. xii: "Hydrogen has 52 times greater buoyancy and 12.2 times greater diffusion coefficient than gasoline. Thys hydrogen will disperse much more quickly than gasoline or natural gas. Similarly, hydrogen's lower flammability limit is four times greater than that of gasoline.
Remember, kids, it's only premarital if you plan on getting married.
Basically, it raved of 70% efficieny whereas typical ICBs are abotu 40% efficient.
The concept was sort of radical. Instead of inline, V, or even opposing cyclinder configurations, the cylinders were arranged radially and the whole configuration rotated on a sort of elliptical track. The main advantage I saw was the momentum of the spinning disk. It also promoted the use of say 12-24 cylinders for a much smoother power source.
At the time, I asked about investment opportunities. This sort of thing, when patented, could blow away the industry and every car manufacturer could easily adapt to this new design. They responded that they were only taking large, private investors I think I recall.
Anyways, the point is that even the traditional ICB designs aren't as efficient as they could be. Let's not turn everything upside down if we don't have to. Deisgns like this could make normal fuel last longer.
It will take quite a powerful force to make the powers that be want more efficient engines.
Moderate this Furd up. He hit the nail on the head. :)
To answer why not methenol, there are a number of problems: It has a smaller energy density than gasoline [ not as bad as batterys] and it adsorbs water which will corrode and rust out your gas tank and everything up to the motor.
Ethenol, which is what we midwesterners get added to our gas [to subsidize farmers] is a better additive/alternative than methenol. And you can drink it, too
A clean burning fuel cell has lots of promise, but at this point it is still way more expensive than gas. Also you now need to store liquid or compressed hydrogen in your car.
Second, do you have any links or data to support this 10,000 mpg statistic? Unless these cars are just going downhill with their motors idle, I find it rather difficult to believe that there are cars getting 300-fold better fuel efficiency.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
That's because cars are subsidized up the ass, and other forms of transportation aren't. Of course people like me can't afford to have a car, the main cost for someone like me (male under 25) is the insurance.
Last I knew, growing hemp was illegal in this country, thanks to the timber industry. Yeah, they gave the really lame excuse that it contains THC, but who the hell would smoke hemp? You'd have to smoke pounds to get stoned.
I can't believe this question was chosen for "AskSlashdot." The answer is simple: gasoline (or oil, really) is cheaper than any other alternative fuel. Why? Abundant supply, cheap processing, and an existing infrastructure. Fuel cells, flywheels, solar power, electricity, all those alternatives cost more than gasoline (at least in the short term, and ignoring external costs, like environmental damage). Thus, none of the alternatives can compete with gasoline in the market. Also, it doesn't look like this state of affairs is likely to change in the near future, see the article about Thomas Gold in the July issue of Wired.
Here in California, we can buy our electricity from renewable, non-poluting sources, such as solar arrays and wind turbines.
..brad
This is available in other states too. Check out: Green Mountain Energy.
How do you define what a person needs? In the example of the soccer mom you gave, their are 3 types of alternatives.
1. The full size van, which is terrible for mileage.
2. The mini-van, these don't typically get much that much better mileage than a SUV. (24 MPG Villager, 20 MPG Exlorer) They also don't hold up well in accidents (personal experience).
3. The station wagon. These also don't tend to do that well in accidents. While they are better for mileage than they used to be, they have significant disadvantages.
Since mileage isn't that much better, it is often an issue of safety. And let's face it, most people are far more concerned about the occupants in their vehicle.
That leads to some of the advantages of the SUV, first it has more headroom, and more cargoroom. Second, it fares better in bad weather. I live in Minnesota, this can be a /significant/ issue. Third, it can go off road. We have some 12,000 lakes in Minnesota, and typically only the ones in the metro have paved roads.
My point is that you should not berate someone for the type of vehicle they drive. Chances are they picked it based on their needs and wants. It's a free country, this choice is for each person to make, not some special interest group. They pay the price (quite literally at the gas pump) for their choice. Nobody is better than someone else for the vehicle they drive.
As for safety issues, that is a debate (larger vs smaller vs moose vs etc) that is quite up in the air as I understand it. From my understanding the primary reason SUV owners have higher insurance rates is the risk of rollovers. I have certainly passed many a SUV in the ditch or snowbank is my Saturn. This is due to a careless attitude that many people seem to develop when driving these vehicles. These vehicles are certainly /far/ more capable of handling bad conditions than my Saturn, but only if the driver knows how to use the vehicle. It would be my guess that it is the attitude of these drivers that is more bothersome to the majority of those who don't like SUV's than the gas mileage issue.
I've often thought that if people with big bucks would buy efficient, clean vehicles that still had style, it would spur the economies of scale and infrastructure investments required for the rest of us to afford them. I mean, what if Arnold Schwarzenegger bought some bad-ass hybrid gas-electric vehicle instead of that humvee that puts several tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year? Do all the status items have to be so environmentally irresponsible?
--
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Second, the infrastructure for rail is fairly expensive also. That's why it costs about the same to go somewhere by air as it does to go by rail. Most towns don't have rail stations, so how would those large items be transported to, say, the town i live in (only 30 miles from the nearest rail line)? That's why most hauling is done by truck.
Third, a lot of people don't live in major metropolitan areas, and thus don't have access to viable mass transit. (People unfortunate enough to live in LA have the worst of both worlds.) I would be happy to use public transportation, but there may as well not be any where I live. The 5 minute drive to work takes about an hour on the bus, and costs about double what it costs me for the gas. If I miss the bus, no problem... it'll come back around in an hour and a half or so, which is not acceptable on the three nights a week that i have to rush home and take care of my daughter when my wife goes to work. Never mind the half mile walk between my place of employment and the nearest bus stop. I don't mind the walk, I just don't have time for it. I live to far away to walk to work, and a bike (if I had one) would really only be an option about 4 months out of the year.
Now that I think about it, there's kind a a vicious cycle going on here: The public transportation in my town is useless, so nobody uses it, so it never get's improved because nobody uses it. Hmmm...
Anyway, my last point is that the conditions are so different now than they were 200 years ago that there really isn't any analogy. Basically, there isn't enough space on this planet for us to go back to that lifestyle. Besides, it was a hard life and most people didn't really survive very well, or for very long. There are a lot of very good reasons why 98% of the US population chooses not to live that life.
I'm all for a cleaner, better way of getting to the places I need to be, but it has to work. It has to be cheap, easy, fast, and convenient. Frankly, alternative fuel vehicles are as close as most of us will be able to get for a long time. If I could afford it I'd go get one tomorrow.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
My truck has a 30 gallon tank and gets better than 20 mpg on the highway.
But to get back on subject:
I had a small truck which I was seriously considering converting to electric or hybrid operation. The engine block was shot, but the rest of the truck was in good shape. And it had almost no extras (power steering, power breaks, AC, etc.) which made it a great candidate, since all of those features are additional load which decrease range/speed.
I priced out the components I would need to make a usable commuter vehicle. Before labor (which I planned to supply) I was up to about $5000. This was before extras like new tires and aerodynamic improvements. There were no government incentives available to me to reduce my costs.
Use of the HOV lanes was one of my original incentives, but I found electric vehicles did not receive an exemption to the 2 passenger rule. (That changed this week.)
So, I ended up selling the truck chasis for scrap. I just couldn't justify the cost at this time for something that wasn't really practicle even though would have been fun to build.
Personally, I don't think there is much of a future in pure electric vehicles unless power distribution lines are built into the highway. It is really tough to beat the energy density of gasoline or other chemical fuels. I think the future is hybrid vehicles, particularly if energy storage devices improve. I am routing for flywheels and gas turbines.
A typical gas tank is 16 gallons~40 liters. This could be a spherical tank ~8 1/4" across, with a potential explosive force of 18 tons. To hold that in, you'd need tank walls 0.016" good solid steel. Of course, it would be unethical to use anything less than 0.16", and you may want to go a full 1/4 just for safety sake. The tank would add a good 1600 pounds.
I haven't seen the Prius yet, but I was able to rent an Insight for a few days a while back. It was great - except for space. The batteries take up so much room, there's just barely enough trunk space for a bookbag. Although I did get about 65 - 70 mpg while I was driving it. Very nice.
The main issue, though, is one of cost. I would love to buy a hybrid car. But these things start around $20 - 21K. I expect the prices will drop as more models become available, but for right now they're a bit out of my price range.
reverend lola
the titanium sheep
provider of steel wool
I was trying to refute the original statement that using electric power "is only burning carbon elsewhere." Yes, other sources have their impact, but some impact is less than others.
> But how do you crack water? With electricity! The economies simply aren't there.
One also needs electricity and fuel to get oil out of the ground. How come the economy exists to do one and not the other?
> Electricity simply redistributes where the carbon is burned
Unless, of course, the electricity is provided by solar power, wind power, geothermal power, or a hydroelectric dam. As technology finds cleaner, more efficient methods of generating electricity (and the country actually implements them), electric cars would be able to continue running without change, which is an advantage over, for instance, natural gas, which is also a fossil fuel
> Hydrogen is very unstable (and can't be found in a mine like Petroleum).
A) Hydrogen isn't as unstable as you seem to think it is.
B) Even if you could mine for hydrogen, why go to all that effort? In case you forgot, water is easily cracked into hydrogen and oxygen, and that is far from the only source of hydrogen around. Hydrogen is fairly plentiful, certainly more so than petroleum.
i just wanted everyone to be aware of alternative engine designs as well. if you are a survivor of the 70's energy "crisis" then you will want to read up on E. V. Gray. one place where you can do this is at http://www.keelynet.com
The oil companies make tons of money...Their research is pretty much half hearted because a cheaper equivalent to gasoline won't get them as much money.
-You're wearing...A bag? I have misplaced my pants.
One time I read in popular science that there was a car powered by liquid nitrogen that could go up to 20 mph. It made me start thinking about different things and it led me to think of this large daydream. What if...
There was a car that ran on liquid hydrogen, which used the decompression to give it some power, then ingnited the same hydrogen to give it more power. The resulting water could be used to cool the engine as well as the liquid hydrogen itself (which would decompress from the heat etc.). Liquid hydrogen would have to be in abundance for this to work, but if pipeline was laid to take it from plants that generated it, it could be ditributed. Not only that, to make it more profitable, cabling could be laid inside of the pipes thus creating super-conducting wires that could carry not only highly efficient electrical powering, but very effcient data at the same time. Not only that, liquid hydrogen could be shipped into people's homes which could help with the refrigerator, air conditioner, and with stadarization, super cool home computers, which if they were cooled wouldn't need to be in every room, simply servers (which could very well be the next thing anyway, which could be where linux is headed, the home server market, but that is a whole different story all together). Far off I know, but doesn't it fit together nicely?
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Ethanol freezes/melts at -117 C, a bit colder than most of Canada even in the winter. Dry ice (frozen CO2) and ethanol make a nice cooling bath for the -70 C range. Methanol freezes at -93.9 C. The problem is more with their boiling points, 65 C for methanol and 78.5 for ethanol. Warm weather causes more vapourization than the blends used in gasoline, diesel has even less of a problem. Those same blends give you some vapour in cold weather, gasoline blends having some C4 and C5 hydrocarbons in them, so your car is a bit easier to start than with ethanol.
Both methanol and ethanol absorb water rather well, which causes both performance and corrosion problems. Ethanol likes to stay at 95% ethanol and 5% water. Not unsolvable problems, just more beyond gasoline.
The energy density of short chain alcohols is less than that of hydrocarbons, simple because of the oxygen in them - they are somewhat "precombusted". In kg-cal
methanol 173
ethanol 327
methane 213
ethane 373
propane 530
C7-C8 hydrocarbons are around 1000-1100, cyclohexane is about 937.
Methane and ethane have a storage density problem, too. They're gases at normal temperatures and reasonable pressures. Storing them means high pressure gasses, tough to get the density up to that of liguids. Propane is better that way.
Note that it takes energy to get ethanol out of fermentation mixes, which are +80% water and have a lot of other stuff floating in them. Getting the ethanol out takes energy, careful production plant design helps but its still higher that petroleum derived fuels. Hyrogen hasa similar problem, although biotech may help here - if you make H2 from fermentation at least it's a gas and easier to remove from the production vat.
Fuel cells aren't quite here yet, but starting to reach something practical for us folks. One concern is the electrode materials, until fairly recently it looked like fuel cells were stuck with platinum group metals for if fuel cells replaced IC engines electrodes, the demand for Pt would push the price way up.
I was looking all over trying to find a really good link that i had read about flywheel stored energy systems. I am sorry I couldn't find it. To sumarize it was about some engineer who was out to make stored energy systems for cars based upon the use of a bunch of flywheels. I am really surprised that nobody else mentioned flywheels as the /. community is usually so up on science and new tech. for the curious here is an article at NASA's site about thier research on it. And here is some really good info on a hideously designed site. If someone finds the link i was talking about with the slick looking cars on flywheel systems please post it! Thanks :)
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
While I'm not arguing with you on the price issue, there is one more critical fact that most people miss: the gas companies are huge. Very very very big. And they don't want to go out of business.
Did you know that the technology exists for hydroelectric cars? It does. In fact, several hundred hydroelectric cars exist.... in Japan. Guess who owns the copyright to that technology in the US? Chevron!
To make a long story short, the gas companies don't want us to use alternate forms, cause it puts them outta business. I could list hundreds of conspiracy theories, but instead read The Illuminatus trilogy and come up with them yourself, because I need to go to bed.
Cars *help create* ozone. Nitrogen oxides + O2 + sunlight = O3 + (some other stuff you do the chemistry). Tropospheric ozone absorbs UV even more efficiently than stratospheric ozone.
So, drive the most NOxious car you can, as much as you can. Not only will you get somewhere, it'll help prevent your kids from getting skin cancer.
-Toddhisattva
I know that here, in California, they recently decided that they are going to open up the Car Pool lanes to NGVs even when only being occupied by one person. This sounds like a great incintive to be NGV, as well.
---
---
Rob Flynn
Pidgin
The comments I've read so far leave out important factors, some of which may be the most determinant in a switch away from gasoline.
Two examples:
- Economic: The developed world would benefit from depending less on a product owned by third world monopolies.
- Politic: Dependance on oil limits the politic power the developed world has over some undeveloped nations.
- Economic: A good part of cost of the Gulf War could be considered an indirect tax on gasoline. All things considered, gasoline is not so cheap. Keeping the oil market more or less stable is very expensive.
- Economic: Oil companies are transforming themselves into Energy companies (look at recent advertisements by Shell). Their infrastructure may now be suited for commercialization of gasoline only, but alternative fuels may provide better margins on a much more stable market in the long term (think ten years). A search I did a few months ago on The Economist, the NYT, London Times, etc., revealed the the budgets for researhc on fuel alternatives were already in the multi-billion range.
- Environmental/Political: Environmentalists are gaining increased following. They've also acheived political representation in places. Environmental concerns alone might well be the trigger for large scale deployment of alternatives to gasoline. Some US states already have laws requiring a certain percentage of cars be non pollutant in a few years.
- Environmental: The weather is getting crazy, costing lifes and millions and all, and there's a strong movent towards blaming pollution for it all. The pollitical presure from the peanut galleries may become important (like in plain people plain choosing to spend more to get the less pollutant option).
-- Juanco
I hope I am offering something useful to the disscussion....
Most people in Italy with larger engine cars get converted to what they call "natural gas". This conversion consisted of some engine mods and the addition of what looks like those tanks of oxygen welders use into the trunk. In cases where there were no "natural gas" stations around, you could flip a switch and run on gasoline.
The only downside was less performance/power while running on gas.
Please excuse the gratuitous use of "'s, and the scarsity of detailed information.
Perhaps you could include a link that is freely available to everyone and not just The Economist subscribers.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
I can see over other vehicles But nobody can see over you. Glad you have this 'me first' attitude. Minivans and station wagons are just as hard to see over in many normal cars. Ive owned everything from a high 4x4 truck to a low sports car. Even in a normal car the view over a large lincoln or cadillac was impacted. SUVs are not the only problem, not even counting the number of small and large freight trucks on the road. it's safe For you. In an accident, if the two vehicles were normal cars, the two people might walk away with whiplash and nothing more. Same accident with an SUV and a normal car, and you walk away with no problems, the other person might not ever walk again. Your "safety" comes at the expense of others on the road. Not to mention that the vehicle fills narrow lanes and leaves less margin for error, and blocks the views of other motorists, giving them less time to react. The 'safety' is entirely selfish. Again, thanks for your 'me first' attitude. A responsilbly driven SUV is no worse then any responsibly driven car (thought I do hate the cell phone users in any vehicle). And if the small cars wouldnt be so impatient and try passing the larger cars so carelessly the margin for error wouldnt matter. A minivan or large station wagon packs as much force as an SUV if involved in an accident with a regular car, even most normal pickup trucks are gonna be a hard hit for a car. And again, lets not forget the big diesels. I can stick each of my kids in a separate row of seats (no fighting on long trips!) An extravagance that simply cannot be justified. Dear lord, this is the excuse used for raping the environment, wasting resources, and being a menace on the road and taking up two parking spots? Because you want to abdicate your responsibility as a parent?? This I will agree is a pretty lame excuse. Glad you can afford it. Too bad you fail to realize how many others are paying for it (including your kids, who obviously aren't learning how to share their space or cooperate or deal with less-than-ideal situations). Why should someone who has worked and found the means to afford it enjoy it. Just because someone cant, or refuses to? If its unfair for me to enjoy my income to the poor, its unfair for them to force me to share it when they do nothing to deserve it. And driving an SUV does nothing to instill a sense of not sharing, or not cooperating with others in children. A parent in a minivan, car or walking can instill the same bad actions. Its the parent, not the car. If you cant come up with good reasons to bitch, then dont do it!
The Difference Between Genius and Stupidity.....Genius has limits!
Yes, it's still primarily petrol-powered, but I live in an area where malls don't have electric vehicle recharge stations, and where the nearest public-accessible CNG refuel station is 40 miles away. If the car runs decently, I'll probably buy it on principle.
When you move the discussion to alternate forms of energy in general, I've been doing a bit of reading (Energyland, Home Power Magazine, and Solar Design Associates) because of my wife's and my plans to build a house sometime in the not to distant future.
It seems that solar is technologically more viable than I expected. Even up here in un-sunny New England, there are some people living comfortable lives either off the electric grid, or connected to the grid only as a backup/secondary power source.
I don't see solar becoming mass-market in the current economic environment, mind you. In the U.S., the cost per kWh for electricity from the national grid is still far cheaper than going solar.
However, if a few more people answered to their consciences in addition to their bank accounts, perhaps we would see a few more of the recent crop of McMansions sprouting solar panels.
In my area of the midwest, we are starting to get E+85 gas, which is 85% Ethanol, I believe. We have at least one local station pumping it, and I hear there are a couple of hundred pumps in the state. According to our local paper, there are a handfull of cars/vans made in the last 2 years that can use E+85 or regular gasoline. I don't recall the exact models - would appreciate if someone knowledgeable could post them.
The last time I filled up, I paid $2.049/gallon, and the E+85 was $1.699/gallon. Gas prices have since dropped (about $1.699/gallon), but I don't know what E+85 prices are currently.
BTW- Did you know OPEC was boycotting the Milwaukee-Chicago area? I hadn't seen anything about it on the news, but that's what our local politicians would like us to believe!?!?!?
Listening to NPR the other day, I heard this _not_very_surprising_really_ statistic about US gas consumption:
"The US uses 40% of the World's crude oil"
Putting that into perspective:
"40% of the World's crude oil is used by 4% of its population"
Your gas is less than half the price it is in Europe! And I've been watching the news here about people complaining about gas hitting 2 bucks a gallon! FFS!
Oil companies are evil. Period. They destroyed the hemp industry in the 1930's - an efficient, environmentally friendly energy source. Bastards!
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
I thought Standard Oil appealed the case and won?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Bet that really cut down on trolls and first posts ;)
kwsNI
I doubt it was purely a limitation of the car, it may have just been a stoned hippie programmer or something. After all you were near SF after all.
=)
What kind of fuel costs and millage do you get with an alternate fuel. If the alternate to gasoline is 2 or 3 times the cost of gasoline and gets the same or less milage per gallon or whatever unit you measure with, people will not switch. If people switch it won't be because of the environment it will be because of a law or better value for there money.
Since it's likely to be a long time before the gasoline infrastructure goes away, I recommend looking at hybrid gasoline-electric cars. These cars run entirely on regular gasoline; they don't need to be hooked up to an external electric system. They store up extra energy (that a regular car wastes) in batteries, and use this energy later to save gasoline. These cars have the range of a regular car, unlike pure electric vehicles.
Two commericially available hybrid cars are the Honda Insight, and the Toyoto Pruis.
If you get one of these cars, you'll save a fortune on gas while helping to preserve the environment.
I don't know if anyone's mentioned it yet, but my chemistry teacher was telling me about a Proton Exchange Membrane.. the way he described it to me, these things will be heavenly. To briefly summarize it, it ionizes hydrogen to provide energy. The hydrogen is combined with oxygen molecules, which can be taken in from normal air, and the only waste output (I believe) is water. I did a brief google search to refresh my memory and to help you lazy bastards with learning about this from a more reliable source. They won't be commercially available for years, but ..invest in the companies researching/producing these babies (:
has anyone done studies to see if... electrically powered cars actually pollute less than gas.
Yes.
Toyota is trying to get its gasoiline/hybrid "primus" classified as "zero emission vehicle" in California based on precisely this argument. Efficient cars with reformulated gasoline ( RFG) still miss by an order of magnitude (older gasoline cars missed by >2 orders of magnitude). The reason is simple: pollution control technology scales, so a centralized power plant can always do a better job burning clean/scrubbing than an car engine and an itty-bitty muffler.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
That's where the Hydrogen Economy concept comes in: you use efficient, or even (gasp!) clean electric generation to separate hydrogen from water, then you distribute it through pipelines to where it can power fuel cells in homes and cars, creating water as a byproduct.
One problem with that... You suggest using electrolysis to separate hydrogen from water but where does that electricity come from? You can't use the electricity generated by burning the hydrogen. Even if you could capture 100% of the energy released in the burn, it takes exactly the same amount of energy to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms as is released by combining them.
You would have to use some other source for energy, such as gasoline, coal, wood (renewable), or solar. Solar is the only one that would eliminate pollution, and is the most easily renewable, but at the current efficiency rates for converting solar and hydrogen to usable energy, I doubt it's pratical. I could be wrong, I'm no expert. : )
Ya know, I was thinking about this a little while I was walking to work today:
This really is a lot like the OS debate. You've got a huge installed base of an inferior product (Gasoline/Windows), an alternative that most would find preferable if it didn't always get such a bad rap (Diesel/Mac) and another that's technically superior in many ways, but requires more expertise and skill to use (Propane, Natural Gas/*NIX).
I bought a VW Jetta with the TDI Diesel engine, and think it's great. I get 50+ MPG and am paying $1.40/gal in Michigan where gas is still over 2 bucks. Diesels are more efficient, the fuel provides greater energy (greater BTU/s per Gal), and newer ones provide really low emissions.
My grandfather had 3 or 4 big GMC trucks that he had converted to run both gas and propane (dual-boot) and they were awesome. Of course there was a huge-ass propane tank in the bed, but he could go forever on it. That was back in the 70's & early 80's, and I've gotta think that the tech has gotten better since then.
The problem is that the average soccer mom would never be able to fill the tank without getting frostbite on her hands. Since these alternate fuels are all compressed gases, you can't just pour them into a tank. Until this process can be made idiot-proof, CNG and LPG probably don't have much of a future as auto fuels.
The other dude above was right too. There's buses. There's also trains, subways, bikes, carpooling, etc. I consider myself very fortunate that I am able to walk to work from home, but I've also had to commute 130 Mi/day so I understand that sometimes you can't help driving. It's just too bad that we can't have the quality of public transportation that most other Western countries enjoy. Shame on us.
-------------------------------
The same reason why ftp and telnet are still in use -- huge installed base.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Yes power plants will always be more efficient than cars. But note :
:) so it's worthwhile to pursue it).
(a) Transmission loss (getting power from PP to house, i.e. cable transmission loss, up/down conversion loss, connector patch losses, etc.) Power leaking during transmission is a big issue right now.
(b) Charging loss (efficiency is not always good, that's why your battery is hot after charging)
(c) Battery Conversion loss
My point is that electric cars is not the answer. It's to improve efficiencies, whether it's car eff, or power plant (unlikely), or just plain get rid of all the power leakage during transmission etc..
(Anyway, maximing aerodynamics, size, noise will improve efficiency, whatever the engine
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
And I was a Mech Engineer turned physics grad student. (Trading a nice paying job for the academia, where you get half the pay for twice the education.) And a geek of course. :)
Calling a truce in the power plant eff wars. There are probably ways to improve the efficiencies, but that will need some new breakthroughs (which we don't have). The current reheaters, flue-gas turbines, coolers, stuff we currently use has been pretty much maxed out. People are trying to muck around turbine-blade angles, playing around with convection in gas firing chambers, and stuff like that to get that extra 0.0001% efficiency nowadays, which shows you how refined the field is already. In a sense, the production of energy by chemical means is a pretty dead field (one hardly do PhDs in such fields anymore). The space rocketry industry is another good example how chemical energy production has reached "the point of diminishing returns". Basically, "burning" is an extremely inefficient way to get energy.
My prediction on the "breakthrough" needed : a theoretical understanding of how convection works.
(Wish somebody has told me this before I did 4 years worth of thermofluids. Now I have to reeducate myself in other more fertile fields..)
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Sounds interesting. The idea basically is to get "one more cycle" by using ammonia as the working fluid. In a normal steam turbine, the enthalpy of the superheated steam goes down as we runs in through several cycles, with suitable reheats in between (so the graph looks kinda like a big step down, small step up, big step down etc...)
The final work done is some efficiency factor multiply by the difference in start and end enthalpy of the water. Now, usually, the "downstream steam" (i.e which is not useful/hot enough to do work anymore due to it's low pressure) is send up a cooling tower to be condensed back into water. The excess heat released by the condensation is lost into the atmosphere.
But in the scheme you detailed, the latent heat of condensation is used to superheat the mixed ammonia, which then goes through another turbine to get more work done. So in a sense, we get one extra "bang", which will improve the efficiencies of course.
The trick is that ammonia has a lower heat capacity than water, so it takes less to make superheat/high pressure ammonia vapour to do work. (Of course it does less work, but here we are utilizing the energy of which would have been lost anyway.)
Last Post! Have Fun!
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
That is too simplistic. The heat engine depends on many other things. To use your example, the energy "lost" to the enviroment depends on whether you can keep the pressure or temperature of the, say, A, constant (isobaric and isothermal). The minimum loss to the environment is zero, which we call adiabatic. But this is not the whole story, because an ideal heat engine is a 4-step process (a bit like why your car has 4-strokes, a 2-stroke engine just combine the processes). The ideal theoretical "cycle" is the so-called Carnot cycle, which has a cycle of adiabatic-isothermal-adiabatic-isothermal processes.
.7 x .25 = 17.5%.
:)
The distinction is that efficiency is measure by the formula eff = WORK_DONE/HEAT_INPUT
and not eff != HEAT_TRANSFERED/HEAT_INPUT (which
is what most people tend to think).
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that you can only get a fraction of the heat transfered to do work. (Hmmm..this is one of the most simplistic statement of 2nd law I've ever made).
The max efficiency for the Carnot Cycle is given by the ratio (after solving some thermo eqns):
efficiency = (T1-T2)/T1 x 100%, of which T2 and T1 is the heat sink (B) and source (A) respectively, with the temparatures maintained by constant heating (your input energy) and exhaust of your medium.
For a typical temperature ratio, that's about 60%. Now, the ideal "adiabatic" cycle is impossible to achieve, one can only approximate (which is the function of all those reheaters in the power plant).
A standard 4-cycle plant runs at about 40%, which is pretty good. Cars run at 20-25%. This is EXCLUSIVE of _fuel burning efficiency_ (which is a different matter altogether : that's why my original post caused confusion because some readers are not aware of this distinction.) So for example, your car burns gasoline at 70% efficiency, but only convert this energy to mechanical energy (ie. Work) at 25%, your total car efficiency is then
We burn coal at 20% efficiency, because coal is such a "low quality" fuel source (lots of carbon). So if we use electric cars AND we have a coal-burning power plant as our source, we actually put more carbon into the air per mile than if we just burn plain old gas. That's my point.
OK, how the hell do I know all these crap? 4 years of college as a thermofluids major, and 1 year working with Shell in their gas production facilities. Damn it, I am sick and tired of engines and efficiencies!
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
I'm sure someone must have mentioned this already, but I thought I may as well put it up, just in case.
There are lots of fuels that are cheaper/more/efficient/more enviro-friendly than gas, but guess what. They aren't gonna be even CLOSE to mainstream for a long long time.
Wanna know why? I know you do.
It's quite simple. The economy of the entire world revolves around petroleum! Simply replacing it would totally wreck everything! Talk about depression. You think the 1930's were bad? *scoff* You ain't seen nothing. The sheer mass of petroleum cranked out of the middle east EVERY DAY is proof that the world would simple cease to function without it.
I live in Chicago, so I have a somewhat unique perspective. Our gas prices were the highest in the country for a while there, and it may be still. I don't know. That is more of a political stage though, so nevermind for now. The point is that gasoline SHOULD be replaced as a fuel source.
Wasn't it on this very site, about 1/3 of a year ago perhaps, that I saw an article on cars efficiently powered by the excretions of ALGAE? I believe it was. Maybe someone can dredge that one up. The object of my soap box, anyway, is this: gas should be replaced, but there is no way in hell it is gonna happen until seriously proactive people get in a whole bunch of positions of power, and delegate that power correctly. That, as they say on Capitol Hill, is about as likely to happen as a stray comet coming to Earth and crushing Tipper Gore.
Mass transit gets tax subsidies, gasoline gets taxed; if mass transit had to pay for itself, it wouldn't be nearly so cheap anymore. The economy of scale that allows mass transit to work efficiently is actually very rare; it takes the density of a NYC or San Francisco (or Tokoyo, or London) to even come close.
Information wants to be free -- but informants want to be paid.
I remember reading somewhere (I think it was in the Globe & Mail) about how natural gas is being used more by large commercial/government fleets. From what I understand, it is actually possible to convert a gasoline car to a natural gas car. With the amount of driving that taxi/police cars do, it is actually cost-effective to both pay for the conversion and for a refuelling station. As well, I think I read that there is a version of I think the Crown Victoria that comes factory equipped to burn natural gas. The only problem is that with taxi/police/etc fleets, they're willing to go to a central depot to refuel. You could never get your normal suburban driver to drive 5-10 miles to refuel.
That and don't forget that the Canadian goverment claims around 50% of gas prices in taxes!
Right now, the industrial process that converts natural gas (methane) to hydrogen produces carbon dioxide as a waste product. If you happen to be a chemical engineer, maybe you can come up with a new economical process that doesn't produce CO2. Good luck.
Forget about electrolysis. It's much more expensive than converting methane, and that electricity probably came from fossil fuels anyway.
But you have to pay for all of your deliverys. You have to pay someone at least $3 a day to transport you. You probably go out to eat more often because of the inconvienience of walking to the grocery store. If you want to go away from the city you have to use a taxi (anything but cheap) or annoy a friend with a car.
Maybe you save some money, but I wouldn't say it's $10,000 a year.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
There is a huge installed base of gasoline internal combustine engines (ICE). As an analogue, there is a huge installed base of 4:3 NTSC TVs out there now. DTVs are here. Unfortunately half of them are 4:3. They aren't selling very strongly. Every now & then you'll see a press piece on the death of DTV.
:)
Oil companies to pay off, or threaten companies that are developing alternatives to gasoline as a fuel, and to ICE as an engine. We've been hearing about other forms of propullsion for decades now, and just recently we have two alternative cars that are produced in number: Honda's Insight and Toyota's Prius. Have you noticed that both of these cars also have gas ICE's in them as well as electric engines? Sure, part of this is because of longevity (another problem alternative engines must overcome), but I'd bet that the oil companies had more than a little bit to do with it.
Any other alternative car that has ever come out has never been put into production in 'large' numbers.
The mass market doesn't want anything put a gas ICE because it's what they're familiar with. Examples: The Ford Excursion & Expedition are perfect candidates for diesel engines. They are massive beasts that desperately need better mileage, and they have to tow large loads so they need the torque that a diesel engine will give them. However, the majority of these vehicles are equipped with gas ICEs. I don't even know if a diesel engine is available. The Volkswagen Passat has a diesel engine as an option in Europe and Canada. It is not available in the US. I don't know whether this is a regulation issue (as the dealer tells us) or a market issue. I lean towards a market issue because the previous model Passat had a diesel engine option, while the current does not. Volkwagen's new $75,000 seden they have planned includes diesel engine options, but all of the automobile magazines say they don't think we'll be getting the diesel engines here.
Now, we have supposed environmentalists saying that diesel is too dirty so we need to make the fuel itself cleaner, when the majority of the problem is in the engine itself. Transfer truck diesel engines are rather dirty, however Volkswagen's new TDI that is available in the Golf and Jetta (and tecnology from which will soon be in Toyota's) burns rather cleanly.
Oh well, I'm at work so I shouldn't spend anymore time on this. Sorry, if it wasn't very well thought out.
As a side note, I'd hate to see gas ICE's outlawed so that I won't be able to drive the Boxster S I'm striving for, and Red Barchetta will become a true story.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
A lot of the recharging can come from brakeing -- where a lot of energy is normally wasted by being transferred to heat. I'm not sure of whether or not the Honda & Toyota hybrids do this or not, but I read about an electric car recently that gets quite a good charge from brakeing.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Buy a Volkswagen Jetta TDI or Volkswagen Golf TDI. The cars have ~14 gallon tanks, and get 50 MPG on the highway. That's gives you a range of 700 miles.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
The reason for the lower gas prices: bulk purchase, plus membership in OPEC.
That's the big secret; in large scale purchasing and selling, the US has a
lot of weight to throw around OPEC.
I'll bet ya that the gas companies realize that gasoline is nearing its end in terms of viability and supply. I think that the new price hikes aare due to the fact that the gas barons wanna get us for a few more bucks before gasoline is rendered obsolete.
Like sex? Read and write about it! Indecent Blogging
I think the real problem is that Gas has been so cheap in the US for so long. We have had it WAY too good.
No kidding. Gas is nearly $4/gallon here in Germany. My friends and family back home in Florida get no sympathy from me when they complain about paying $1.80/gallon at the pump.
My company would have paid to ship my car (an '86 Trans Am) from the States to Germany, but I declined and picked up a '91 BMW 325 instead. The way that I figure it, the more fuel-efficient BMW will pay for itself in about 8 months. And a BMW 325 is hardly fuel-efficient by European standards...
Go here for some information on the so-called hypercar. The hypercar concept is to wed a highly efficient gas/electric hybrid system (or, ultimately, a fuel cell) to a composite body and frame. By approaching the design as a systems-level problem, the efficiencies inherent in both the drive system and the lighter body can be made to work synergistically. (The Rocky Mountain Institute is really good at this kind of thinking.)
They are not building the vehicle themselves. Instead, they are doing design studies and sharing the results with all the existing automakers, and making it a point that they are doing so. In this way, they force the existing companies to re-evaluate "business as usual" because they know that if they don't, the competition will.
As far as fuel cells go, they are unfortunately not quite ready for primetime yet. But there is alot of work being done on them. Major automakers are talking about fuel cell powered cars by 2010 (which is about 10 years longer than I want to wait, but better late than never).
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
Oh, I was going to fall back on the 'lead is added as a lubricant' theory. I didn't think lead was naturally occuring in petrol and was simply not refined out. I thought it was deliberately added for mechanical reasons.
I once owned a pre-cayalytic converter chevy that ran on leaded gas. When leaded gas became scarce, I didn't think anything about fueling with unleaded. Thought you just couldn't do the other way around (burn lead in a catalytic converter-equipped vehicle).
My friend who saw me using unleaded shreiked at me, something about my valve guides not being brass and that I needed to add lead to keep from burning out my valve guides. Indeed, my local speed shop sold 104+ additive that contained lead and the sales guy told me that unless I replacesd the valve guides with brass, I needed to add lead to keep from burning them out. Don't know if this was really true.
I ended up porting the heads and replacing the valves, guides, rods and rockers and all that later and the guy who did the work did ask me if I wanted brass guides so I could run unleaded.
*shrug*
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
>I didn't think lead was naturally occuring in petrol and was simply not refined out.
meant to say:
I didn't think lead was naturally occuring in petrol and it wasn't simply a matter of it not being refined out, it was added for mechanical reasons for earlier cars.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
>The ones that had problems were driven hard.
Ah, this was a '70 1/2 Camaro RS that was driven pretty hard!
>in practice those engines were not designed to todays tolerances and so they wouldn't have gone as many miles before the next rebuild anyway.
Probably very true. This was a small block (327) with a 4-bolt main (out of a '69 vette, IIRC) and after it had some 60K+ hard miles on it, it needed a good rebuild (which we certainly gave it!) Man I miss that Car!
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
How will that be so? When the price of gas rises high enough, or advanced technology drops the price of alternatives. That will make them more affordable and there by swinging the door wide open for them. As of right now, that's just not the case. Gas stations are everywhere, you would need to have that kind of coverage and availability for the alternative that will replace gas. That will take a lot of money.
So, when will this happen? How should I know...but, I can guess that it is not going to be too soon. I'm sure the automakers have done some investigations into this through R&D. Frankly, the reason we don't see them moving toward alternative fuels for all their new model cars is probably because they have figured out that it's too soon. [perhaps the hybrids are an experiment to test the timing of this] Gas is still the best solution right now and in the near future. When the time is right, when it is more profitable for them to do so, they will switch to alternative fuels. You'll wake up one day and it will just begin to happen. I wouldn't worry about it. But then again, I don't worry about much at all. :)
How do you make liquid Hydrogen? The same way you make electricity, off at a plant somewhere.
I should have been more specific in the original post. Most fuel cell fuel gets made somewhere using a process that pollutes.
- My password is slashdot
I'd really like to know how much pollution is created generating the fuel for Fuel Cells. Just because your car doesn't emit pollution doesn't mean that pollution isn't being generated. It's just removed from the public eye.
Noone realizes the Electricity Generation pollutes the environment more than anything else.
The theory with fuel cells is that it's easier to make a centralized plant more efficient and reuduce emmissions and what not, but they're still not pollution free.
Just something to think about.
- My password is slashdot
As others have said -- the real problem is infrastructure. Any transition needs to include creation of infrastructure, and slow transition from one to the other so that we can use up our old gas cars and infrastructure without imposing too high a cost on the lower-income groups. If the transition is anything but instant, the lost jobs in the gasoline business will be soaked up by whatever the new infrastrucutre is.
SOME environmentalists DO think in those terms. not all, but some.
As a resident of Washington, DC, I find riding a bicycle to be an extremely effective means of getting from point A to point B.
I zip around the nation's capitol on a modified Trek 8000 (I call it the Postal Assault Vehicle due to its loud blue/red/white color scheme).
D.C. has the nation's 2nd worst urban traffic congestion. It's not so bad on a bike. I can hop curbs, jump to and from the sidewalk, manuveur between cars, go the wrong way down a 1 way street, and ignore red lights. Better yet, I can easily pedal away from the law during D.C.'s frequent citizen uprisings (bike cops are rather slow).
Every week, I get a new set of scars that serve as the focal points of conversations and elicit sympathy from the fairer gender. There's nothing like a good wreck to wake ya up in the morning.
My laptop, however, doesn't appreciate my riding habits. Just lost my "F5" key last night after a collision.
Vergil
Insects and Grafitti Photos
I use a bicycle because I can't drive yet. I am doing my part to crack down on pollution.
wow, this story has a lot of comments!
For roughly $20 every 300 miles, I can go anywhere anytime with a gas-based engine, and I can recharge the energy source within a few minutes of travel from any location at any time.
Try that with any other source. Straight electricity requires a lengthy recharge (on the order of hours) and a high-amperage outlet (where?). Hydrogen essentially isn't available. Natural gas isn't much more common.
Has ANYONE documented the cost per mile, miles per recharge, and average availability of recharge/refill sites? Gasoline does really well for all of these.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
the end product of fuel cells is H2O, only... do some homework
Think about that. Same deal.
depends who's right about the source of oil. some scientists think oil is created deep within the earth and constantly replenishes the suppliy. if that is the case, there'll be oil for a long time, although in restricted quantities.
you don't pump raw crude oil straight into your car. i'm pretty sure the part of the oil used for fuel and the part(s) used for plastics are different...
Nuclear power is an exceptional solution to pollution problems, and they help to make electrical cars more feasible. One argument that a number of people seem to be making against electrical cars on this thread is that by the time you factor in the pollution inherent in the production of the electricity, combined with the low efficiency of power transmission systems, you lose any pollution and efficiency benefits that you may have had. Nuclear power solves the pollution problem, since the only thing they emit is steam (which is actually a greenhouse gas, but it condenses before it does any harm). As for nuclear waste, it is a far less serious problem than most people seem to believe, it can easily be dealt with by launching it into space. The threat in doing this is nil, if you store the waste correctly, it will not be damaged even if the rocket explodes. As for the economics, a one-gigawatt nuclear plant, IIRC, anually produces material, that, when packaged, weighs between 1 and 10 tons, and while I don't have any specific figures, I am relatively sure that the cost of launching that into space with a small, reusable rocket, is quite feasible. The only reason that this system is not being used is because whenever NASA tries to put anything radioactive into space, protesters turn out so as to show their ignorance. Also, by using breeder reactors, we can be assured a supply of nuclear fuel that, even with exponentially growing power needs in developing countries, will last for 300-400 years at least. Therefore, nuclear power can be concluded to be a safe, highly efficient, non-polluting source of energy. The second point I want to make is that the lack of efficiency in power transmission can be remedied by using superconducting power lines. For those who aren't aware, superconductivity is the property of certain materials to conduct electricity without any loss of energy at low temperatures. I am less sure on this point, since I have never read anything about it that really mentioned economics, and I, personally, am a bit dubious of the initial cost of putting all power lines into underground tubes filled with liquid nitrogen, but, if it can be done, it would result in 20-50% more electricity available to end users.
It's pretty much common sense; lighter vehicles usually get totaled. I drive an 1985 dodge dakota, and if I as much as rear ended someone, I'd be in the hospital!!! I like the promise of alternative feuls very much, but I just wont touch one that is lighter than my 'truck.'
I have a '99 Yamaha R6, which by default runs on gasoline or methanol. I haven't run into any gas stations in the area (NY, NY) that have methanol, although I must admin that I haven't really been looking. Anyone have any idea if any newer cars can use methanol without modification?
The challenge has been met, or at least the potential is there. A set of plans for converting a car to run on water (which is then converted to hydro) are located here. I haven't been able to try out the plans myself since I'm not inclined in that area, but if anyone wants to give it a go, I'd love to hear about whether or not it's actually feasible.
The problem with most alternative fuel sources is that they don't offer the performance of petroleum-based gas in a combustion engine does. I don't know about natural gas or fuel cells, but it's always been a big strike against electric cars.
Even if the average American driver doesn't do it on a regular basis, they still would like the ability to "drop the hammer" and do 0-60 in under X amount of seconds, and do 100+mph on the open highway. Just take a look at any car commercial on TV. They all talk about performance, handling tight curves, etc. Hell, they make mini-vans and SUV's seem like sports cars.
Until an alternative fuel comes along that cane match or exceed the performance a gas-combustible can give, we will all remain Exxon's bitch. Call it the "Dukes of Hazard" syndrome I guess...
Yes I agree that I would miss my CARS (plural). I think however that I would be willing to give up my cars for my life(talking polution here). Yes that's not B.S. either. I do value my ability to breathe/drink a beer now and then/walk around more than my cars.
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Er, um, VW makes a diesel Beetle, Golf, and Jetta, all under 20K, and all get 40-50mpg.
Test drive one today, I did. Wonderful torque and great pickup, even with the automatic!
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
We didn't have cars 200 years ago, and people survived, I think we could probably figure out a way to do it again!
we didnt have much indoor plumbing either.....
Having a car is about having the freedom to go where you want when you want.. screw mass transit, I want a Big Mac right NOW!
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Let's be pessimistic and say steel is 0.3 lb/in^3 (it's really more like 0.28). That gives a total wieght of 66 lbs. Much easier to deal with, yes?
--
Dyolf Knip
When I went down to Valencia California for my brother's graduation we went through the lovely airport there and rented a car. Naturally I got the cheapest car I could find, but while I was filling out the forms I couldn't help but notice that Hertz (or was it Avis, checking both sites didn't reveal anything helpful) had an ELECTRIC CAR for rent! They have gone to great lengths to make it easy to use and have even secured special parking spots in garages in LA that are reserved for the Electric cars... These spots are the ones right next to the electrical outlet... Also, they will come and get you at no cost if you were to run outta juice. Of course this is only for those schmoes who are worried about it because I know this doesn't happen unless you are the kind of person who runs out of gas....
How about bio diesel? It can be made from used vegetable oil from you local McDonalds and can be run in any diesel car/truck with only a few modifications and can still burn regular diesel too. http://www.kelseyville.com/biodsl/
http://www.windmeadow.com/
I mean, I would love to have an electric powered car, right? Where would I charge it? Just about only at my house! What would I charge it in?
Actually the new Toyota Prius doesn't need to be plugged in. It uses gas to charge the battery and uses regenerative breaking to re-coup some of the power lost by breaking. It gets like 50mpg city and 40mpg highway with a range of 600miles on a full tank. All that for only $20,000. I don't mean to sound like an advert but I figure the more popular it gets the more manufacturers will have to consider it. Honda has a gas/electric hybrid on the market now too but that one looks kind of gay.
Switching from once fossil fuel to another is just... well stupid. And I don't know the industrial method for extracting Ethenol, but I expect it involves the purchase of an organic coumpound, and lots of time.
Hydrogen however is the most available substance in the universe. Hydrogen as fuel could be used in ICEs (Internal Conbustion Engines) such as what you might term the classical gas engine, though I was more referring to Tesla's Disc pump, which can be fueled by anything that creates a pressure differental of matter (79 years ago that was steam). But also Fuel cells whose exhaust is pure H2O.
Hydrogen is extensivly used in modern society, so the industry for its creation is already there. Beyond that, you could just make your own. I would expect that if cars actually used Hydrogen, it would be fesable to buy a device for about $400-$1000 U.S. that would simply be plugged into an outlet or run off of solar power, and be refreshed with water as needed, producing hydrogen and oxygen through electrolisis at as much as 85% efficency. Hydrogen fuel cells are around 80-90% efficent. Standard ICEs are 10-20% efficent, Tesla's disc pump is about 60% efficent.
There is a lot of reasearch into hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells, so learn away.
At any rate water is cheap as hell, and contains alot of Hydrogen. Electricity is cheap as hell too (compared to gasoline & fossil fuels). So if I remember avigodro's number correctly (and I'm sure I don't) 20 kg of watter = 4 kg of Hydrogen and 16 kg of Oxygen. Now one of you chemists out there can tell us how much energy that is, but I suspect that much fuel would last you at least a weeks worth of commutes.
i felt very proud of myself. i now use a power chair, or wheelchair powered by a computer run off a battery.then i got to thinking about the electricity that i plug my chair into at night.maybe it comes from a plant in ohio that burns coal, which is responsible for all the smog we have on east coast.i don't feel so good anymore.electric cars have to come from electric plants.i figure i'll heat my house by going deeper into the earth. it's resonably mild down there.
Serious engines are powered by ethonol or methonol so why can't we use it in our cars. This would also keep our american farmers very much in business.
Got Code?
The notion that the oil companies can buy off competing technologies and squash them is silly. For starters, if a competing technology really were better, then it would be more economical to buy the technology and promote it, rather than squash it.
For another thing, the oil industry is extremely competitive; nobody has a big enough chunk of the market to benefit from any sort of monoploy position. Even OPEC has to lower their prices as often as they raise them. When they try to restict production to keep the price up, one or more of their members eventually suffers a cash crunch, and they start cheating on their quotas, and then the price drops again.
Known reserves of oil today are greater than they were 30 years ago. This is because we're still discovering oil faster than we burn it. Some day, that trend will change; when we start burning it faster than we can find it, then the price will increase dramatically, and alternatives will start to make economic sense. But there will still be enough known reserves of oil to last more than 100 years at current consumprion rates, and usage will decrease when the price starts to rise.
So, in summary, there will come a time, perhaps in the next couple of decades, when the price of oil will REALLY shoot up. Then you'll see other technologies start to catch on.
Check this out:
National Electric Drag Racing Association
For pictures of a bunch of EV's see:
Electric Vehicle Discussion List Photo Album
For EV's for sale see:
EV Tradin' Post
-cajun
Hello, Slashdot.
:-P
:-)
I've been interested in alternative fuels and electric vehicles for many years, due mainly to my hobby of working on older very fuel-inefficient vehicles. As an enthusiast, I want to have my cake and eat it too. The "magic bullet" solution isn't here quite yet for sale at the dealership but that doesn't mean you can't do a homegrown effort.
I'm a member of the Electric Vehicles Mailing List see: EVDL Instructions to join or to browse the archives.
A group of us are trying to design an electric car along the "Open Source" idea, basically a set of plans from which anyone can build or base a design of their own on for an electric car.
Main problem at this point is too many people to please.
An electric vehicle conversion can be made to go 120 miles on a charge using ordinary golf-cart style lead-acid batteries, top speed around 75mph or more and that is a mixed city/highway range, not an optimal low-speed range. See it here: Red Beastie
Someone mentioned methanol pumps in Brazil. Sorry, they use Ethanol there as a highly gov't subsidized alternative fuel made from sugar crops there. Ethanol has been shown to use more energy in its creation than you can get back from it, so it's not a large-scale viable fuel for environmental reasons.
Methanol, on the other hand, can be made from virtually any biomass source, but the preferred gasification/reformation method "likes" woody, dry herbacious feedstock like wood scrap and the much-touted industrial hemp.
Some approximate figures:
One can get 10-20 dry tons of biomass per acre of land using prairie grass, trees and/or industrial hemp.
From 1 dry ton of biomass, 100-150 gallons of Methanol can be produced.
That's roughly 1,000-3,000 gallons of methanol per acre per growing season. At 10mpg that's 25,000 miles on 2.5 acres average.
Fuel cells will get roughly 100-150mpg equivalent, so that's 250,000 miles per 2.5 acres average.
Or, a quarter acre can drive you 25,000 miles per year. You can provide most of the fuel you need to drive every year by mowing your lawn!
For electric cars using batteries, the concern everyone seems to have is "Where do I charge?"
You can "plug in" anywhere you can get electricity and permission to use it. The only time you need a special plug or custom plug is when you buy the OEM EV's with their proprietary big-$$$ inductive chargers or when you want to "fast charge" to fill your pack in an hour or so.
I could drive an electric vehicle if I had a garage or a dedicated parking space where I could erect a plug. That's the current drawback: only homeowners or those who have landlords/condo associations that will let them plug in can really have them. Fits well, though, because such people generally have 2 cars anyway one of which usually shuttles back and forth to work with only one person inside most of the time. Keep the gas minivan for hauling the fam around, use an electric for the commute to work.
Ford projects methanol hybrids to be available in 2003 or so. This is in line with the current state of the art in fuel cells and on-board reformers. Methanol can be pumped just like gasoline, so infrastructure is a matter of cleaning out a gasoline storage tank, replacing all the O-rings with methanol-tolerant versions, and changing the price and label on the pump.
By the way, the Prius is just a hybrid-electric Echo sedan. The price difference will take 230,000 miles to pay off at $3 a gallon for gasoline.
You can buy CNG trucks from Chevy and Ford, you just have to order it from the factory.
Propane is widely available, and it doesn't cost much to switch. Check the cost of the fuel and your miles-per-year to see if it is viable.
Cheapest solution today for commuting: Used Diesel VW Rabbit and similar vehicles from the mid-80's. Sub-$2,000 cost for the vehicle, 45mpg, cheap fuel at truckstops. New cars? Volkswagon TDI. 45+mpg.
Fuel Cells are coming, and they will rid commuter cars of those pesky Carnot heat engines. Meanwhile, us Enthusiasts (AKA: Gearheads, Engineheads, Petrolheads, GreaseMonkeys, Hotrodders, etc.) can use the methanol in a conventional heat engine and take advantage of it's very high octane to enjoy very high performance. Remember: Formula 1 engines run on methanol, and turbocharged versions pushed almost 1,000hp out of their tiny engines...
-cajun
Interesting stuff. Energy density of gasoline is ~43 Megajoules/kg, and hydrogen is ~139 Megajoules/kg. That's over 3 times. I wonder though why we can't have compressed hydrogen as our fuel (Compressed all the way to a liquid)? I realize there are probably concerns about danger during a car accident (lets ignore the Hindenburg for now), but how much volume does a kg of each take? Even if the liquid hydrogen takes up 3 times more space than gasoline, it's a break even right?
Having hydrogen as your fuel source would be great because your fumes would be water vapor. All of a sudden LA becomes humid instead of smoggy
Please respond to this as I'm really curious. I've asked plenty of the chem major types I know, but they never seem to have this information. You're the first person who sounds knowledgeable about the topic.
someone moderate this guy down ... he needs to check his facts ...
gasoline -- 44,800 kJ/kg or 19,260 Btu/lb
methane -- 50,010 kJ/kg or 21,500 Btu/lb
here is one of the best solutions i've seen ... ovonic ... check out the presentations ... its a hydrogen storage system that will be compatable with existing infrastructure ... and let's see lithium ion batteries are boasting .6 Wh/g * 1000 g/kg * 3600s/h * 1e-6 MJ/W-s= 2.16 MJ/kg ---42kg/gas * 42MJ-gas/kg / 2.16MJ-batt/kg = only 816 kg (getting better)... the real problem is power ... current batteries cannot draw current fast enough for good performance.
I don't have to work as hard as the robots that drive their piggy SUVs.
I love it! Bet that Land Rover isn't looking quite so trendy. Of course, with some of these people they're probably thinking, "hmmm...driving this big expensive SUV despite a gas crunch, people must think I'm really rich. Cool!"
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Nice idea, but it's not necessarily the answer. Over here in the UK we have a 75%+ tax on petrol/gasoline/whatever - and that doesn't make people switch to other fuels, it just costs them more money.
Meep meep
because petrol smell so yummy
I live in NYC, i ride the train to and from work every day, it's fast, cheap, and efficient, a marvel of engineering. It's only fast in a high population density area. They are only cheap when you live in a place that already has one. When i visit my parents in CT, however, you can't do a thing without a car. Now, of course, people outside of cities *could* constrcut decent mass transit, but they don't, and that's fine -- it's a lifestyle choice based on perceived convenience and, to some degree, an archaic sense that one's car contributes to one's identity. But it's a lifestyle *choice*, and when the price of gas goes up and this causes what were, essentially, forseeable economic impacts, what am i supposed to do, cry? Economic realities and historical infrastructure choices dictate that mass transit system are impractical for much of the country. In NYC there is sufficient population density to viably support a subway system. There simply are not enough people where I live to support one and there already is an already installed alternative. Is it better? Probably not but it doesn't matter either because it isn't going to change anytime soon. Mass transit has forseeable economic impacts too, just different ones is all. As for your lifestyle choice comment the only lifestyle choice is that I choose not to live in a large city. The reasons I choose that have nothing to do with automobiles. Cities (especially NYC) are dirty, poluted, crowded, noisy, sometimes dangerous, and usually ugly places to live. Of course suburbia (which is most of the US these days) has it's drawbacks too. They also both have their positive features. Which is better? That's up to you.
Two basic reasons really. First is that there hasn't been a new engine design in quite a while. Economic reasons mostly since these companies have been struggling and engine design is expensive. The engines used in small planes aren't much changed in the last 40 years from what I understand.
The second is that airplanes wouldn't use catalytic converters like cars do. The only reason cars switched over is because leaded fuel destroys catalytic converters so when the legislation was passed mandating cat's on every car, they also made the refining companies switch to unleaded fuel at the same time. Without the cat, we'd probably still have lead in our gas today.
the reason we still use gas is that the consumer does not care enough to make switching a reality.
the gas industry is like the music industry - old and set in its ways.. it does not want to change the way it makes its living. "An object at rest tends to stay at rest" to quote some newton.
The difference with the music industry is that a force is acting on it - the consumers are refusing to stick with the old ways, and the music industry is up in arms about it.
The same thing would have to happen for the gasoline industry to change. customers are going to have to take it into their own hands, and make a fuss about it.
of course, you can't make an infinite number of perfect copies of your gasoline, and distribute it on the internet. it'd be great if you could, though...
wish
---
I want a car that runs on the GNU Public License!!!
wish
---
When it affects me - I'll switch. I suspect that every person reading this can also afford to gas up their cars despite the price so until it affects them too, no switcheroo ...
My dad used to own a propane van that he purchased from his work. This was about 15 years ago but I remember how much of a pain it was to go all the way to his work to refuel it. Plus when it was freezing cold outside you had to release this freezing cold valve thing to find out when the tank was all the way full. If it wasn't such a pain and of course cheaper then everybody would make the switch to an alternative fuel. I think the most promising thing on the horizon are hybrid cars so that you have the option when one fuel source isn't available. Jess
Well in the U.S. we have lower than average sales tax on gasoline, provide tax credits, and certain parts of the tax code work in their favor.
Plus you could call the funds used for energy research as a 'oil subsidy,' but in the end these "subsidies" can't account for the higher prices of other countries.
I'd really like to hear from someone actually from Europe, and say one way or the other.
I've read that European countries intentionally tax their gasoline very high, in order to curb its usage. Is this true?
If you have a long trip planned, you will get a lot more range and better gas milage with a fully-charged battery.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
For those that don't know, Honda and Toyota have itty bitty cars on the market now that get "up to" 70 MPG by having an electrical motor "assist" a tiny, underpowered gas engine. Government subsidies make them suprisingly affordable, but their range is not very far, they gotta spend some time recharging just like the full-on electrics, they're really small, they don't accelerate much or take hills very well, and I would hate to get into an accident with one.
I took a long hard look at the Honda a couple months ago, and read a lot of reviews from people who drove them. IMHO, they offer the worst of both worlds, but they offer a certain amount of geek appeal to folks who like to "Drive Different".
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Some adviser from America was pointing out to them that converting some of the economy to a free market while keeping communism intact was "sort of like saying that we are converting traffic to have cars drive on the right instead of the left, but this year we will start with just the trucks and vans."
Environmentalists might not be such big cheerleaders for electric cars if/when we start throwing out about 200,000 huge-assed batteries every year. They tend to create a lot more landfill problems than a rusted-out gas tank.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'm afraid you're confusing apples with oranges. 90% efficiency may be in the conversion of electrical energy into motion, but that begs the question of where the electricity came from in the first place. There's no portable heat engine that's going to get above ~50%; the availability lost through combustion alone is going to guarantee that. In fact, the Diesel engine beats the Otto (i.e, gasoline) engine in efficiency pretty handily, but it isn't going to get you to 90%.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While it is true that you don't pump crude oil into your car, the refining process (as I understand it) breaks down the crude oil into its component parts and then selectively reconfigures them into the desired products. The current average product mix is about 45% gasoline. (19.5 gallons per barrel) This can be compared historically to 70 years ago when only 25% was refined into gasoline. All told 80% of a barrel of oil is used for transportation or heating purposes - for which alternative energy sources are feasible. In scanning several petroleum organization websites I was disturbed to find that even they claim that there is only 80-90 years supply of oil left at current consumption levels. Taking this as the most optimistic estimate I believe my concerns are legitimate.
Do you have any references for the scientists you speak of? As far as I know all oil is created deep within the earth - but it is reliant on the decomposition of organic matter. There is a lot of biomass stretching miles beneath the earths surface but the problem is TIME. I don't doubt that with a functioning biosphere the organic processes that lead to oil production would continue. This could lead to replenishment in geological timeframes (i.e. hundreds of thousands of years). This will not be of benefit to our current civilization. Also note functioning biosphere! I found an article in science magazine(subscription required for full text) which discusses the latest US Geological Survey assessment of global oil reserves. The main points they make are 1. that they expect world oil production to peak around 2015-2020. 2. the experience of production in the US is that improving technology will not be able to halt the decline once the peak is reached.
Heres another interesting article from science magazine. It provides an overview of the experts estimates of when oil production will peak.
1) The original poster is half correct about the difficulty to start a methanol engine. The cold-weather problem has been GREATLY diminished over the years by smart electronics.
2) The great problem in the alternate fuel area is (of course) political. There is a government agency here called Proalcool who's supposedly in charge of stimulating the use of alcohol instead of gasoline. Now, the whole program was started in the wake of that horrible mess the Arabs got everybody into in the early 70's. Along the way, there were times in which the program was on the brink of extinction because of low gas prices. (with under-the hood help from the oil companies no doubt) There was even a period in which NO new alcohol cars were coming out of the factories (unlike now). Needless to say, environmental considerations never had a great influence.
3) Now there's a third fuel being used by cars (mostly taxis): natural gas. Still a fossile material, but less nasty than gasoline.
4) Alcohol WOULD be way cheaper than anything else with proper management and smart, well-organized agriculture. The fact is, <rant> Brazil is and has always been run by an upper caste of idiots who don't give a damn about the population's well-being or the country's progress. AND the sheep-factor of the average Brazilian is even higher than that of Americans (believe it or not).</rant>
5) Despite all of this, alcohol cars have been uninterruptibly available for more than 20 years, and they do work. Just to show how strong the idea is.
6) Let's not forget alcohol combustion gives out plain old CO2, while gasoline has all those nasty things (like CO for instance) coming out of the exhaust.
7) It's a Brazilian invention, so I get to be proud of something else besides Pelé and Ayrton Senna! ;)
"Standing up to an evil system is exhilarating." --Richard Stallman
Brazil uses ethanol (plain alcohol, the same one present in drinks). Only Indy-style racing cars use methanol AFAIK. I wonder where that comes from.
"Standing up to an evil system is exhilarating." --Richard Stallman
There's another problem with methanol: it's hydrophylic, so it will absorb moisture from the air, contaminating it. I'd be interested in hearing how Brazilians address this problem.
Methanol absorbs water only up to a certain point where the mixture becomes stable -- the two of them even evaporate evenly. If I remember right it's about 4% water. AFAIK methanol for cars is already at that point. Methanol combustion gives out water anyway (along with CO2), so I guess the engine just lives with it.
"Standing up to an evil system is exhilarating." --Richard Stallman
Why do we still use gasoline? Easy question: you can sniff it. Try getting high off solar power, it's just not the same.
-Antipop
Just incase it hasn't already been said 500 times, the answer is simple. Yes, gas sucks compared to the newer technologies. But it has one extremely important advantage that none of the other energy sources have, ITS CHEAP! Thank you.
Whenever industry technologies change, certain sets of skills become obsolete, and people are always quick to complain how such changes put so many people out of jobs.
What these people never seem to think about or mention is the millions of new jobs that get created around the new technology. The industrial revolution, the computer revolution, blah blah blah - everyone cried/cries about how everybody's jobs were/are going to be replaced be machines. It hasn't happened - last I heard unemployment in the USA was at an incredibly low 4%, and there are many openings still for people skilled with computers. Whatever technology replaces gasoline (or "petrol" as we call it in our country) will also create many new jobs.
I'm sorry for the people who end up with obsolete skills and can't get a job. It is bad. But that is the type of world we live in. I'm a C++ programmer - and I realize (and accept) that within the next 20 years, all the skills I've acquired may be nearly worthless. If I'm lucky it won't happen in my career-lifetime, but if not, then I will either have to adapt, or lose out. Tough. Life doesn't give handouts.
"a way that will not result in the economies of several countries being tossed down the toilet which will further result in war"
You seem to forget that a number of wars have actually been caused by the world's dependence on oil, and the power that comes with controlling vast amounts of the oil supply. You are right, though, that it is likely that decreasing dependence on oil will result in some military instability (most likely in the middle east) as those countries lose much of their economic power. But you can't stop change - technology will eliminate our dependency on oil. So these changes must be dealth with. Wars were fought in the past over salt, but now salt is a common, cheap commodity - so nobody has to die over it. In the future, energy will also be a common, cheap commodity. You can't stop this sort of change from happening.
I agree with your last sentiments - whatever replaces gasoline must be cheaper than gasoline, and benefit "end-users". But part of the point the article poster made was that those high prices may be artifically created by oil industry bribes. I for one don't doubt it one bit - there is absolutely no way that that sort of thing would not happen, considering how many billions of dollars are at stake. No oil industry executive would just sit back and let their industry collapse, they'll be doing whatever is within their power to keep their stronghold. That is not beneficial to the average American, I assure you.
So if you're looking to solve the global warming problem, the expense problem, or any problem, by eliminating the dominant energy source, remember the second law of thermodynamics: "Any change in a closed system will tend to make the system more entropic." (more random) Basically any method of generating energy will negatively affect the world in some way (except solar, which negatively affects the sun, slowly).
You seem to have forgotten the definition of a "closed system," which in thermodynamics is simply a system that is impermeable to mass flux (i.e. no mass can go in or out). An "isolated system" is one which is both closed and adiabatic (no heat transfer either). Although you correctly grasped the concept that 'entropy goes up,' you failed to remember that there are conditions attached to this statement. Specifically, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy change of an isolated system in any process must be equal to or greater than zero.
The entire universe can be considered an isolated system, so it would be a correct to say that the entropy of the universe must always increase. However, what makes you think that any part of Earth, or the solar system, or even the Milky Way galaxy is isolated? Does no mass or heat ever cross the border between the U.S. and Canada? Does heat in the form of solar radiation not leave our solar system? When liquid water turns into snowflakes, the "randomness" has certainly not increased; the reason is that the atmosphere is not an isolated system.
I find it annoying when people blithely invoke the rules of thermodynamics to prove whatever they feel like. There are some Christians who claim that the Second Law PROVES the existence of a supreme deity, because how could anything non-random arise when the 2nd Law states that all changes must lead to increased randomness? (The answer: earth isn't an isolated system.)
Here we have a person supporting the Oil Oligarchy by saying that the 2nd Law PROVES that any form of energy production will somehow 'negatively affect the world,' implying that we might as well stick with gasoline. There might be a lot of reasons to use gasoline -- technological limitations, established infrastructure, consumer convenience and corporate greed, etc -- but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is certainly not one of them.
Unhappy? Kill your television.
You're right, we should be complaining about the fact that our income tax is used to give us the illusion that our fuel is cheaper. Since most people don't know about this (like the gov't would WANT us to?) I expect the flames to start...... ...... now!
Alcohol fueled cars are barely different than gasoline fueled cars. With a biomass base, it burns clean and relies only on new plants (compared to million-year-old plants ;). Switching from a carbohydrate based system to a hydrocarbon system wouldn't increase prices that much at all.
Fuel would be much cheaper too since drilling and refining petroleum is waaaaaay more costly than growing plants and putting them through pyrolysis.
It's unlikely we will see a large-scale shift to cars running on alternative fuels until it becomes economically advantageous for the auto industry. Of course, they all pay lip-service to the idea of environmentally-friendly fuel sources, and throw a few R&D dollars into it. Ultimately, however, we will probably have to wait until the petroleum supplies force prices into the stratospheric range where it actually becomes more economical to convert/retrofit the existing infrastructure to accomadate the alternative fuel sources which are under development.
the oil oligarchy says we have to. As long as the oil companies keep gas prices at levels low enough to compel alternative fuel technologies, we'll be stuck with gasoline.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Most environmentalists, especially the "casual crusader," make a common mistake: the main cause of our environmental ills is not so much our choice of technology but rather our choice of lifestyle. If we do not change what we consider an acceptable living standard, technology shifts will not matter or will be very difficult, if not impossible, to implement. Keep in mind, that the planet has much less resources than what it would take to provide 25% of the world population a living standard comparable to the U.S. "middle class."
A case in point is this obession with fuel cells. Fuel cells are technically more efficient - in that they have better thermal efficiencies (ratio between energy in fuel and output energy after processing) - but not better economic efficiency. The cost of building fuel cells are still so prohibitively high that we can't afford to replace our major fossil-fuel burning energy generators (whether electricity plants or car engines) and continue to consume our current amount of energy without a several magnitude increase in cost.
The better approach is not to moan about gasoline vs. methanol/fuel cell cars or renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.) vs. coal/gas burning electricity plants. Rather we should be talking about ways to curtail our energy consumption and change our lifestyles to be more eco-friendly. Talk about mass transportation. Talk about relying less on AC and other luxuries. Turn off that computer when you are not using it.
Also note that many of these new technologies (fuel cells included) are feasible in small scale but not large scale. So decreasing our consumption would also lead to a natural, voluntary shift (without use of govt subsidies) toward these newer, cleaner technologies.
Latter-day capitalism. Like it or not, it's the society we live in. Even the standard of right and wrong has been subdivided, made sophisticated. Within good, there's fashionable good and unfashionable good, there's formal and then there's casual; there's hip, there's cool, there's trendy, there's snobbish. Mix 'n' match. Like pulling on a Missoni sweater over Trussardi slacks and Pollini shoes, you can now enjoy hybrid styles of morality. It's the way of the world--philosophy starting to look more like business administration.
Natural gas? Bah! It'll never catch on. As a society we've been weened on gasoline. C'mon, that's the way it is. Everything is rigged, tied into that massive capital web, and beyond this web there's another web. Nobody's going anywhere. You throw a rock and it'll come right back to you. Face it. Gasoline is fashionable.
Excellent article. I'm not a fan of The Nation in general, and my first assumption was that the article was written by some left-winger working under the 'Business BAD!' premise. Not so! The author is 'a columnist and editor of Automobile magazine', and as such is probably not (my guess) a regular Nation contributor. One question: I recall my father being concerned over the lead phaseout in the '70s because the lead additive supposedly lubricated the valve seats, extending engine life. However, the article doesn't list this as one of TEL's alleged benefits. Has anyone else ever heard this?
Brandishing Dangerous Logic
I work for a fairly large manufacturer of aluminum dies casting for the automotive industry. I don't mean to ass-kiss my own company, but they do a good job of recognizing changes in in the industry and adjusting accordingly (hence their heavy expansion and sizeable profits - but i digress)... Some of the higher-ups are clearly want to stay on top of things and are expecting to begin manufacturing castings and such for fuel cell engines and related systems (nobody can predict the future, not even I) within 10 years time. Of course all of this is profit-driven, but thats what companies do, make money. And if a company can find a way to make profit off of alternate fuels sources, I'll bet my cynical love of capitalism that they will...
One of the problems with moving to fuel-cell based sytem of transportation is getting the hydrogen where it needs to go. We have no hydrogen infrastructure, while we already have an infrastructure for electricity, gasoline, natural gas, etc., but no infrastructure for hydrogen. Infrastructures cost money to build, so who's gonna pay for it? And on top of that, hydrogen isn't exactly the easiest thing to transport. I, myself, want hydrogen bad...fuel efficiency with zero emission, a good, simple solid engine (instead of these complicated monsters that break down every week...at least mine does)
"My religion is to live --and die-- without regret." -- Milarepa
A few years ago Consumer Reports did a report on alternative fuels, stuff like ethanol, and a basically said that the technology was there, and that everyone should use it. An oil company(Sunoco?) bought up every single newsstand copy they could get. Oil companies have bought out patents to engines that run on alternative fuels. They know that if the word ever really gets out, then they are doomed. I wish I had the link to this stuff, I think it might be on the Consumer Reports website, and maybe FAS? Anyhow, the point is that the reason people don't have a chance to get this stuff is because the oil companies hold it down. If Joe Gaspump starts selling ethanol at his gas station, how long do you think he'll be able to buy gasoline from the big shots? The US mail service has also started using ethanol cars to deliver the mail. The tech is there, its the man thats holding it back.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
Here in SF the municipal railway runs streetcars and electric buses off the Hetch Hetchy system, a series of hydro dams in the Sierras. Replace a diesel bus or an auto with one of these guys and you have clearly reduced the amount of greenhouse gases, pollutants, and so on belched into the air.
So if the source of electricity for those cars is clean, you're in good shape. The challenge is to find such power, but I'd pay a slight premium for it - wouldn't you?
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
I'm starting to see more and more electric cars. I know at my job they have a couple parking spots where you can recharge for the day.
I like petroleum: It's remarkably handy stuff and there's a great infrastructure in place for getting it to where you need it. The real problem is overdependance on the private automobile which made it practical to work in the city, live in the country and buy groceries at the megamart in the next town because the prices are lower there. It's an alluring idea and millions of people have bought into this vision. But the price is traffic jams, smog, long commute times and rising fuel prices. More and better freeways, super-efficient cars and alternative fuels can serve as band-aids but they're by no means a cure. What can you do? Stop making excuses for your own lack of action. Change your expectations: Temper your visions of a big affordable home in a suburban cul-de-sac with visions of long commute times. Move into the city near mass transit lines (don't just "support" mass transit--use it) Turn the car into what it once was: A wonderful luxury for enjoyable weekend treks. Used thus, go ahead and buy that Ford Excursion or 6.6 liter Trans Am and feel free to keep the A/C on max!
Ever think about what you expect from your car? Or what everyone else expects? Fuel cells are wonderfull, I believe they will replace combustion engines, but the time is not ripe. They may not offer the acceleration, the instant responce, and the power of gasoline engines now. Maybe later, they will. And then there's the problem of the hydrogen it takes to run fuel cells. You can break down water to get it, but that takes energy. Or you can break down fossil fuels to get it, and where does that leave us?
Finally, a topic I know something about! I help produce NGV.ORG, a website dedicated to providing information about natural gas vehicles. The natural gas fueling infrastructure is growing quite rapidly. In California, you can now drive dedicated natural gas vehicles in the carpool lane (with appropriate decal), a real plus. There can also be tax rebates and other financial incentives to use natural gas. Natural gas Honda Civics, Ford Crown Victorias, Toyota Camrys, and other passenger cars are available NOW. Check it out.
I mean, I would love to have an electric powered car, right? Where would I charge it? Just about only at my house! What would I charge it in?
The biggest problem with electric cars is that there is no where near enough electricity to power even a small fraction of the cars that we have in this country. (remember all the power outages that we've been having lately?)
We would need to probably double/triple the number of power plants we have to accomodate such demand and that's not easy to do not only because of the cost factor, but also because no one likes living right next to one (even if it's not nuclear).
The Dayton Daily News and Cincinnati Post reported last week that the Cincinatti, OH and northern Kentucy bus transit system will begin useing a mixture of used oil from fast food resurants and diesel later this month as part of a test of a new way to fuel diesel engines. It drops the price that the bus system pays for their fuel to 50 cents a gallon. Read the Cincinnati Posts story here.
JOIN !LINK CLUB!
If you ask me, that's the main problem with alternative fuels... they're not available. If you go to the DOE's website and find the section on alternative fuels (I don't have the url on hand)there is a feature that'll let you search for alternative fuel stations near you. I searched last summer, and I found that the closest place to gas up with methanol was about 200 miles away, and it sure as hell is not worth it to use a full tank of fuel to drive to a place to buy more fuel.
Ford seems to be leading the way with the methanol fueled cars. They have some pickups and some of their cars (taurus and crown vic to name a few) that are available to run off methanol. Other companies seem to be waisting time with crap like electric cars (that electricity comes from burning fossil fuels anyway, so what's the difference?). Its all about the availability, the methanol burning cars aren't hard to make, the methanol itself isn't hard to make, its just a matter of it finding its way into a market that's dominated by oil companies.
I'm not sure I agree with the problem with power SOURCES, but power DISTRIBUTION is an issue. It's not that the electric companies have a shortage of power to deliver, as far as I'm aware we're never near their capacity. The trouble is in the lines which bring it to us. Every summer when we fire up our ACs, this causes more current to flow through those wires. More current, means more heat. More heat means things melt and run out of spec. Transformers blow. Lines fuse (I have a great pic soemwhere). Blackouts and the resulting mayhem and general CWS (computer withdrawal syndrome). The cost of the power companies having to make changes to their distribution system... that's bad.
Now, imagine a world with everyone plugging in their cars and running their ACs...
On the other hand, I'm not clear on exactly what kind of power drain would necessarily be imposed by an electric vehicle. From something i was reading a while ago they wanted to have 'fast charges' and 'slow charges'... Fast charges you'd get on the road, slow charges you'd get at home. Slow charges would not likely incur significant power drain, wherein fast charges...well you wouldn't want that equipment around your children or pets. Possibly your mother in law.
I quack therefore I am.
By comparison to the U.S., the cost of gasoline in Hong Kong and Singapore is simply exploitive. Japan is pretty well up there, too -- which is why it shouldn't surprise anyone that the first companies to hit the U.S. market with practical electric cars are Honda and Toyota.
Not that this can't be dealt with, of course, and if veggie fuels were more common it probably wouldn't have been an issue. But it is a reason.
That's because they didn't have suburbs back then. Or explosive population density growth. To get along completely without cars in a major metropolis today, you'd have to replace every single highway with a mass-transit system just to keep sending people where they need/want to go.
Not every part of the world is like "L.A. Story"; some people use cars because there's really no other way to get to where they need to work.
Part of the complaint of the original article was about our dependence on OPEC - which can be fixed with ethanol. Now, it's not very efficient, but it's not OPEC.
because we live in such a happy place where resources are seemingly never going to run out (so not true), we are spoiled and made to love our SUVs, Hummers, and sports cars. I will gladly buy an alternative fuel vehicle for the main family car. But I'm still going to keep my 66 mustang, and I'll be darned if I give up the 130hp motorcycle I own... (try getting 130hp out of an electric or natural gas motor on a motorcycle...) ~J
in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
painfully so...
AFAIK, we're about to have another spike taking prices to about £1/litre - i guess thats about $1.50 a litre = >$7.50 a gallon?
(exchange rates are soooo not my thing....)
My school's engineering dept. works on propane cars.. They're very clean/efficient and quite powerful.
Our chemE dept. also does fuel cell research. i dont understand why these things havent made it to the maket yet.
Boycott Shampoo! Demand REAL POO!
What I'm wondering is why these two technologies haven't ever merged. Obviously its hard to develop the infrastructure for fuel cells, but what if the ability to re-energize them was put into the car itself? The car could gather water vapor from the air and electrolysize it using solar energy or possibly a wall plug. Then when it comes time to run the car, the reverse reaction takes place, giving you lots of power.
If necessary (for instance for long trips) The car could have hydrogen put in directly, but otherwise IMHO people don't drive their cars a large enough percentage of the day to need quick active refuelling if they can get slow passive refuelling.
Information wants Coq
What is up with you people? Mr. Government's pocket is being lined with cash? Who is this elusive government that takes your money just because it can!
Hmm, could it be that the government, in fact, spends this money on getting things done?? Could it be that the government actually gives this money BACK to the people, serving as a kind of redistribution organization? Could the government be doing things like building roads, keeping the elderly alive, and helping people who have little money get health care?
Apparently, you seem to think that congressmen are motivated financially to tax us. They're power hungry, not money-grubbing. Most congressmen are already incredible rich, anyway. But, lets assume you're right. The government takes in say $5,000 a year from the average person, this times 250,000,000 people or so is $1,250,000,000,000. So lets divvy this up, shall we? This means that every year, we have approximately $2,000,000,000 for each congressman. Not bad, eh? And all this from making our gas prices high! Damn those bastards!
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
Don't forget the M400 Skycar, which also will be running on gasoline :)
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
-Phredrick Dobbs
Emperor of the Universe
Grand and High Protector of Everything
True enough that we at this time do not have a overly good replacement for coal or oil, however that is what research is for, and dispite what people may think i can say for sure that there is not much in the way of trying to create a NEW form of power Plant. and I must say that you are wrong and cars are not the main problem, yes they help out with pollution but all of these coal and oil burning power plants are the MAIN culprits. No we at this time do not have a viable alt. power source but we need to research one and that, as i said, is not happening. Yes cars may only be 30-50 percent efficient but they still do not cause the majority of pollution that we breathe on an everyday baises. Yes a hybrid will help reduce the car pollution, but you are only reducing 30-40 percent OF 40 percent from the whole of pollutiion (about 18-21 percent total) yes it helps but if you want to make a dent in pollution, research an alt. power source for us to use to power the rest of the planet.
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
Gas powered cars are not the REAL problem, Yes they do contribute to pollution, but not to the extent that everyone seems to think. The real bad guys are the POWER COMPANIES, They burn Millions of TONS of coal and oil every MONTH to power our homes and businesses, not to mention hey would have to burn just a little bit more for that *wondeful* new elec. car of yours, and that is why most companies have not put out electric cars yet, they know it would not make any real difference !! in one moneth the power companies cause more pollution than all of the cars on the whole planet do in one YEAR!! If you don't belive me then go check it out, look up the info for your self. Until we find a new source of POWER for the power companies we will not be free of air pollution in our world.
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
It follows the old rule of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." (well, to call it "not broken" would be somewhat inaccurate, though)
But the bottom line... it's simple human nature to not want to change how things are unless we start running low on supplies, or if people start dying in the millions.
Perhaps I'm over-simplifying it, but unless there is something that is clearly "better" (which is not going to be made instantly, because it's competing against nearly 100 years of automotive technology), people aren't going to jump on it.
Except where does that 'clean/efficient' electricity come from to separate the hydrogen from water?
Probably a coal-burning power plant.
There's only so much energy to be had from solar or wind or hydro-electric sources... and it's just not nearly enough for forecast energy needs.
Everyone's talking about oil... I wonder how long the coal will last?
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Why the HELL do people insist on buying over-priced, gas-guzzling, polluting SUV's when they have absolutely no rational, realistic use for one??
Frankly, I think gas prices are fine where they are. They're at a level that MIGHT just encourage some conservation, and they're still less than half what Europeans pay.
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I agree. Here's my proposal for a new tax system (which would apply to all personally owned private vehicles, not to commercial vehicles. SUVs would definitely be covered):
A tax on all cars that get less than 20 mpg city, and a separate tax on all cars that get less than 20 mpg highway. Each mpg less than that level gets socked with a $500 tax.
Thus, a car that gets 19mpg highway, 15mpg city would pay 1 x $500 plus 5 x $500, or $3000 tax on the vehicle at purchase time.
Each and every year, the mpg threshold goes up by one mpg. Thus in ten years time, the tax would apply to all cars getting less than 30mpg highway/city. The amount of the tax would go up $100 per mpg every year, so that after 10 years, it'd be $1500 per mpg missed.
That provides both incentive, and a nice 'ramp up' time.
On top of that, add a nickle/gallon gas tax, and up it by a nickle each year.
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Well, for one thing, I didn't say there were only ten years left. I said some oil-producing countries only had a ten years supply left. Most countries have more (double, triple, sextuple that).
Second, market forces are good, but the problem with that is that Americans currently pay what are in effect 'subsidized' prices. And there is such a huge infrastructure right now supporting the oil industry that you couldn't change it all over to something else in 'market time'.
The best solution is to economize where possible and reasonable (gives us more time), and to tax (gives more incentive to start the groundwork for looking for and implementing replacements). These additional things in concert with market forces will help a lot.
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I can see over other vehicles
But nobody can see over you. Glad you have this 'me first' attitude.
it's safe For you. In an accident, if the two vehicles were normal cars, the two people might walk away with whiplash and nothing more. Same accident with an SUV and a normal car, and you walk away with no problems, the other person might not ever walk again. Your "safety" comes at the expense of others on the road. Not to mention that the vehicle fills narrow lanes and leaves less margin for error, and blocks the views of other motorists, giving them less time to react. The 'safety' is entirely selfish. Again, thanks for your 'me first' attitude.
I can stick each of my kids in a separate row of seats (no fighting on long trips!)
An extravagance that simply cannot be justified. Dear lord, this is the excuse used for raping the environment, wasting resources, and being a menace on the road and taking up two parking spots? Because you want to abdicate your responsibility as a parent??
Glad you can afford it. Too bad you fail to realize how many others are paying for it (including your kids, who obviously aren't learning how to share their space or cooperate or deal with less-than-ideal situations).
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
As I see things now, hydrogen is probably our most promising replacement for the standard gasoline ICE. Think about it. Even if manufacturers were able to come up with an affordable electric car that had a range of 250-400 miles between rechargings, the energy to create the electricity STILL has to come from somewhere (i.e. oil burning elec. plants, coal-fired plants, natural gas, whatever nuclear plants are left...forget wind or solar, those are still VERY expensive and can't provide a large amount of power to a large amount of people) well, the hydrogen idea is simple. 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O. We're left with pure water as our only by-product. The thing is, how do we get a portable source of hydrogen..Large tanks of pure compressed hydrogen not only are very expensive, wont last very long, and if they would get ruptured in an accident, would cause your car to explode like the Hindenburg. Not pretty. The best idea I've seen so far is from Powerball Technologies, which uses a solid ball of sodium hydride, covered in a thin polyethylene shield. A device installed in the automobile slices the ball in half, and when the NaH is dropped in water creates the products NaOH + H2. The only problem with this is the large amount of sodium hydroxide, which can be collected at "powerball stations" and reformed into NaH and O2. Here's the link: http://www.powerball.net/ I think its a darn good idea. Let me know.
Lars, I just wanted you to know I found myself humming Master of Puppets in the shower, how much do I owe you?
Nope, sorry, there was no magic carburetor developed. Even if the guy were paid off by oil companies to shut up, something that could be that beneficial to the public couldnt be kept a secret that long.
Lars, I just wanted you to know I found myself humming Master of Puppets in the shower, how much do I owe you?
This article is being modded up to 4-5?
Damn, I can remember when geeks had some hint of a clue about math or science.
The author opens with a claim that Shell Oil has a competition where cars run on "standard petroleum" -- maybe a diesel could run on pure petroleum, but that's the stuff that comes out of the ground, not out of fuel pumps. That's a hint that he's clueless.
Further he claims 10K+ miles/per gallon (40K+ kilometers per liter) That's 200x most production high economy cars, and 100x the target for the ultra economy cars. In order for this to even be thermodynamically possible, the efficiency of today's cars would have to be under 1%.
Don't we even have some intuitive sense of the general amount of energy in burning gasoline? And the amount of work involved in moving things on Earth. Think!!! Halfway around the Earth on a gallon? Do you really believe that? (10K mpg is trivial in space, of course) Think of the amount of enrgy required to lift a car over even a modest hill.
Well the guys working on Society of Automotive Engineers competitions sure haven't seemed to have heard of it. Even their most highly compromised, highly optimized vehicles don't come close. Ultralight, ultrafragile shells on bicycle/tricycle frames with a total vehicle weight in the *tens* of pounds (see some pictures) can achieve many hundreds of mpg -- at 15 mpg on a track with no uphills greater than 1%.
Actually, if you read the SAE competition rules, you'll see that these vehicles are not capable of cruising most campuses. They are too underpowered to climb any hill that you can't coast over at 15-16 mpg. (a modest speed on an ordinary bicycle)
The truth about trolls: They're just spammers, wasting our time/bandwidth and calling it 'free speech'
Here in the city of State College, Pa (Home of the Penn State Nittany Lions football team, if you care), we use natural gas powered busses. They look pretty normal, except for the storage tanks on the top. They are quieter than the standard diesel busses, and are almost totally clean burning. if you want, you can check them out at www.catabus.com . The city saves a lot of money this way, for it is cheaper for the natural gas than diesel fuel, and they also get some tax benefits from it. Hopefully, more cities will follow suit.
--- At my sig, unleash hell.
Don't buy a car, take transit. If you DO buy a car,try to invest in alternative fuels. If you own a gas-guzzler, or even worse, an SUV, perhaps you should just opt out of discussions of this nature until you are willing to put your $$$ where you're ) is.
duh. Adjusted for inflation gasoline is still near it's bottom. The only time it's been cheaper was a short stretch not long ago when americans started buying SUV's to rock their babies to sleep (one suburban women actually did with her Chevy Suburban until gas cost more than a dollar)
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Both the Insight and Prius are technological feats and they do get great gas mileage, but they're not really for the American consumer. They're both really small, don't accelerate quickly (we're talking 13-14 seconds 0-60 time for the Prius), and eventhough they may get great mileage, they're extended range on the highway is limited to how long the battery lasts (that 1.3 ltr inline 3 doesn't make enough horses to keep the car going along at 80 miles an hour by itself). And, both Honda and Toyota are taking losses on these vehicles: at least $3000-4000 per car, just so they can be the first to have hybrid electric vehicles on the market. But, I guess both Honda and Toyota should be applauded for their efforts.
If all you're looking for is a car and high miles per gallon, the Honda Insight is far from an ideal choice. Volkwagen's Golf, Jetta, and Beetle TDI's (diesel engines) all get excellent mileage, with the Golf TDI approaching the Insight's mpg average, for about $2 grand less. Plus you get a full size, four-door car (as opposed to the 2-seater Insight which is also quite cramped for luggage space). VW manages to make money on the sale of a Golf, while Honda is currently selling each Insight at a loss.
Even if you're looking at an Insight because you want the lowest emission vehicle possible short of a peddle bike, or you think that some people have to adopt the technology just to prove to other companies that it's the way to go, it might be a better idea to wait a few months Toyota's Prius electric-gas hybrid. It's a full-size sedan that's far less compromised than the Insight, with even higher mpg.
Another reason for the lack of acceptance of alt fuel cars is that you just don't see these cars as high-performance machines. A lot of people like quick acceleration and driving really fast (like myself). AFAIK, fuel cells, electric, etc. right now aren't capable of the 0-60 or quarter-mile times you can get in a gas-powered car. I'm not a big fan of our gas dependance but I think I'll wait until I see an alt fuel car that can do 0-60 in 4-6 seconds.
"It smells like cooking oil, burning vegetable oil," said Joe Jobe, executive director of the National Biodiesel Board, which coordinates research and development of the fuels.
See Biodiesel's site.
--
this is my sig
Here's the deal I see. First, we don't have the infrastructure, which is covered by other posts here. Second, all of the extra power-sapping stuff we have in cars these days.
Power windows. Air conditioning. Heat. Power seats. Power steering. High power audio systems. Need I go on? People love their cars, people like to drive and commute. Do you really think everyone wants to give up their gas engine, which runs things like your A/C compressor and power steering hydraulics, in favor of an electric-only car that doesn't have any power to spare for air conditioning? I don't think so.
Your electric car doesn't create enough heat to heat a car they way we currently do it, and certainly not enough to run enectric heaters, which just plain suck down an encredible amount of power. Is there enough electricity to spare for power windows? Headlights, if you're driving at night a lot? No, and no again. These cars don't appeal to the general population because of these nice touches, options, and luxuries that we like to have in our cars. However, a fuel cell that puts off a good amount of power could run all kinds of electric compressors, pumps, and whatnot like a modern vehicle. Or a hybird engine that kicks in when the extra power is needed for whatever reason.
It's the V-10 engines that are killing us, not the I-4's and smaller. The Insight uses an I-3 engine, and only has a curb weight of 1878 pounds. Here in America, we're on an SUV craze, with bigger vehicles that weigh more and demand bigger engines to move a 6000 pound vehicle. Give me a 2400 pound Focus with an I-4; less power required to move the thing, uses less gas than a V-10. Think about how much less gas wold be used if there were only cars. 30 MPG is better than 12, even if it isn't a hybird's 60.
Give us a car that's exactly the same as today's cars in every way except in what's under the hood. Give us our climate control and a million power accessories. Build the infrastructure that we need to run a hydrogen based fuel cell vehicle, or more hybird vehicles. Give us the option of having a hybird engine for no extra cost over a gas engine, or better yet, a discount on the total price for choosing hybird over gas only. People will then start to see these cars as real alternatives, not some toy car lacking major features. But electric-only just isn't any kind of serious alternative to gas engines.
Or maybe not, just because a car isn't a big-ass SUV, which is today's vehicle of choice. Get more people to drive a car first.
--
this is my sig
Once, long ago, I was involved in a study of using metal hydrides for storing hydrogen (kind of like a magic sponge - H2 tank only slightly larger than a gasoline tank for the same range). The problem was that it needed to be hot - maybe 100C I can't remember - to give up the stored hydrogen; if a crash ruptured the tank this moderately hot stuff might spill out. Since there was no industry/social practice to define a limit on the legal liability of this event, the risk killed the technology even though a ruptured gasoline tank is a drastically worse event.
This legal inertia is a serious impediment to many technical improvements. None of us need to be reminded how litigation-happy the US has become and the staggering sizes of product liability awards despite incredibly bone-headed user moves.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
First: people seem to have lost interest. "Why are the gas prices so high? Let's bully those countries into submission instead!" and "You can power your car with that???"
Second:
Back in the late seventies (Carter Administration) there was a little crisis in the middle east (Iran, right before hostage incident) which rose gas prices similar to their current trend (but don't complain, it's worse everywhere else in the world). Carter started a bunch of programs to look for alternative fuel sources. As a result lots of companies were created, and the scientific achievements led to the much increased efficiency of solar cells, the invention of fuel cells, among other things (I'd bet batteries and Power Wheels are the offsprings of this, but I don't know).
Why don't we have any of this in our cars >20 years later, you ask? Here's the Flamebait: Reagan stepped in, got rid of the programs as part of his government streamlining, the new companies went out of business, then Reagan decided we should waste our money he saved finding out how to play Space Invaders with nuclear missiles, a.k.a. Star Wars program. If not for Reagan I am certain we would be recharging our cars in our garages every night.
I warned you...
# debian/rules
We still use it because the companies tell us that we still use it. There is still money left in fossil fuels, and you won't see any "innovative discoveries" until after we've run out of the copious supply that we have now. Of course there's other alternatives right now, but who's gonna push them? The Oil Companies?
Ha.
Get real. In Toronto, this is not the case. Mass transit practically pays for itself, when each trip is 85% paid for by the rate-payer and 15% paid for by the government. (and still a one-way fare is only $2.00 Canadian, which is cheaper than the subsidized $1.50 US NYC fare)
Consider that your gasoline taxes should be paying for all of the things that your car requires, and don't forget roads and maintenance, pollution clean-up, etc.
The fact of the matter is that the taxes you pay for gasoline (and on the car itself, insurance, licensing, etc.) do not even come close to paying for the resources used. In Toronto, public transit does.
True, but the infrastructure to distribute could not handle the amount of traffic it would need to, if a mass conversion were to occur.
It all has to do with infrastructure. If you search around the web, you'll find numerous sites that deal with alternative fuels, electric vehicles, and fuel cells. But they are all niche products just waiting to hit the mainstream. The very large problem in Arizona is the availability of alternative fueled cars that people can get their hands on. Honda's car is backlogged for about a year. Ford trucks, Crown Vic, etc vehicles are backlogged at least 6 months. The people that have done propane conversions are also backlogged 6 months and the lists are getting longer. At least the fuel source in plentiful. (US centric mode ON)The US gets about 95% of the propane and natural gas it uses from internal sources, very little is imported. I consider this a great thing since we don't have to worry about OPEC hiccups.(US centric mode OFF) Since I personally live in Arizona too, I'll be trying to get in on the rebate deal. From my research, it looks like propane and natural gas run vehicles are SLIGHTLY less costly to operate. The internal combustion engines are also said to have less wear and tear. Oil actually still looks golden after several thousand miles, etc. The real kicker that wasn't mentioned in the article was the $30,000 rebate for vehicles greater than 12000 lbs. I've never wanted to own an RV so bad in my life.
Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
I think you forgot to mention: the cars have been in Japan an a few other foreign countries for a while, but they just started marketing them here this year no one really missed out yet. The cars sell off the lot so fast I have not been able to find a dealer able to keep some for test driving.
The following statement explains it I think: The Oil companies are the ones who own the patents to solar panels.
you said you want to know why people use leaded gas leaded is much less clean but also much more powerful. in airplanes they use it because power is a greater factor than cleanliness the first cars used this also for the same reasons one other thing is that leaded goes through a few less cleaning processes and is slightly cheaper because of it
Why complain so much about the price of gas, when you adjust for inflation gas is cheaper than today than in the 70's and 80's. Why do we not just get over being stupid breeding opulent idiots and be a "little" more efficient with the way we live. Perhaps stop buying SUV's....
Despite the increases of gas and oil prices, it is the cheapest, most available fuel out there. There is a large amount of research in this field. Solar power is not efficient enough. Wind power is not stable enough. Wave power is not cost efficient. Nuclear power is cheap, but somewhat dangerous (in the eyes of the public). As for using electricity from cells for cars, to many batteries are needded to run a car for an extended period of time. Battery powered cars have existed for decades and the driving range of ~80miles of todays cars is not much higher than electric cars of yester-year.
We first need to find an efficient, high powered, and safe portable storage scheme. Then, we can look for an alternate energy source such as using the excess H3 on the moon (article from space.com) which is enviromentally friendly when it goes through fusion. For now, we are stuck with fossil fuels and stuck with the cartel the Middle Eastern countries have enjoyed.
In Europe they pay about $5/gallon (although its done in liters) with current exchange rates. Do you see them complaining? NO! One thing, they have fantastic public transportation. I was in London for five days and mastered the Underground; I could get anywhere, anytime, anyplace without even giving it second thought. Try that in LA, or even BART in the Bay Area. It's a joke. Plus, better gas mileage in Europe because there are no pithy environmental restraints. Most of our gas is just air. It's a big mess. Our gas costs more because it has all these restraints on it which make it less efficient. The gas companies have to do this because of the government. Its a vicous circle. America.
If only it was more socially acceptable to use a bicycle for transportation- less traffic, less pollution, etc...
Now if only the office I worked at had bike showers... I would be in better shape, I could sell my (cough) SUV, I would save hundreds of dollars per month.
But there is a stigma associated with any type of transportation other than driving (more in some parts of the US/world than others, but it is especially bad in the southern US). I dream of the day when I can work somewhere with bike lockers and showers, and snicker as I ride past the $5.00/gallon gas stations.
Yes, many Brazilian cars use hydrated ethanol. We simply call this fuel "alcohol". Here in Brazil, Alcohol (U$0.40 per liter) is 25% to 50% cheaper than Gasoline, depending on the season. Alcohol cars spend 25% more fuel than the same model with a gas engine. This means that in one year you always pay less than a person who has a gasoline car. For the same motor size, the alcohol one has equal or greater power than the gasoline one. My one is 4% more powerful (120 cv), but cold be more if the industries wishes. On colder days (temperatures below 10 degree celsius), gasoline is introduced during motor startup during a few seconds. Since all new models use fuel injection, the engine startup is easy and few people notice the difference. Many people don't like alcohol cars because they had difficulties starting the engines one decade ago, when the cars used carburetors instead of fuel injection. We don't have dual fuel cars (gasoline/alcohol) because alcohol motors use a higher compression ratio which would make the gasoline detonate before the spark production. The anti-detonation characteristic of alchohol permits higher compression ratios and power for the same motor size. Here in Brazil you can convert gasoline/alchohol cars to operate with gas and the original fuel (you choose which one to use simply turning a switch). This conversion costs less than U$1000 in Brazil and there ara many refueling stations in the metropolitan area of Sao Paulo. Finally, alcohol causes less polution and does not produce that bad smell that gasoline does in catalisator equipped cars.
As long as the oil companies are the ones who control the solar panel technology, the size for car-use-panels will be too big until they decide it is time too shrink it...
10 years of breakeven because the invested money is too low. There's a report from greenpeace about an investment from shell, saying that if the investment, for a just opened factory, was seriously (they invest a lousy 55 million or so)around 700 million, their claim of 10 years needed to be competitive with oil-prices, would be reduced to zero (so immediately competitive!).
Hello, I just learned of this site (via an email list I subscribe to for drivers of the GM EV1 electric car). I had an EV-1 for 5 months prior to a recall to upgrade the charging assembly. I expect the car back next year. It was a great car - fast, high-tech, good-looking and a lot of fun to drive. (No tailpipe, either!) Meanwhile I am driving my 1993 FFV Taurus which can use up to 85% methanol in its tank. The 15% (or more) gasoline in the tank solves the cold start problem another person mentioned. Methanol (and ethanol) is a clean burning fuel that has an invisible flame. It is used by all the Indy 500 cars due to its high octane (well over 100) and because the drivers can see through a fuel fire on the track to avoid obstacles. Gasoline (and diesel) burns with a sooty yellow opaque flame. The 15% gasoline component of the M-85 fuel I can buy, doubles the emissions. Since I live in Silicon Valley, cold starting is not a problem - but the oil companies that sell the M-85 blend and the auto makers (Ford, in my case - that manufacture the FFV car I drive) have insisted on keeping this 15% gasoline component in the fuel. Recently, the contract (with the 3 filling stations in my area) to sell the M-85 fuel has expired, so I am forced to buy gasoline. I'm leaving shortly to attend a wedding in Sacramento where there are still some stations that sell the M-85 fuel. I hope to fill up with the Methanol blend while I am up there. There is an indicator on my dashboard that displays the percentage of methanol in my tank. I has been on 0 for the last few weeks. Hopefully I can get it up to 85% this weekend. I pay $1.039 per gallon for the M-85 fuel (using a special fueling card) while gasoline is around $2.00 per gallon lately. To be fair, I get about 13 miles per gallon on M-85 while I get about twice that on gasoline. I also drove a dual fuel car that ran on Propane or gasoline for a few years. That car had two fuel tanks and two carburetors using an Impco conversion. Since I am new to this site, I haven't read any of the over 1100 postings on this topic, so I may be redundant in my remarks. If any of you would like to correspond more on this subject, my email address is: JPohorsky@aol.com. I wrote a 4 page paper in 1990 entitled "A Pollution Solution" which explains what an FFV is, and how we can fight OPEC and the oil companies with alternative-fueled vehicles. I still have some printed copies left, if anyone would like one. I can also email the text version if preferred. Adios, Jerry
Toyota's Prius is a real 4-door 5-passenger sedan with a good trunk, power accessories, air conditioning, etc. It drives great, with plenty of power on the freeway when you need it. A big color LCD touchscreen in the dash gives you a running display on what the hybrid system is doing, what your instantaneous mileage is, what it's been, etc. You even get little "bonus point" icons for every 50 watt-hours of energy you recapture on braking or coasting. EPA estimates are 52 city / 45 highway. That's right, it's more efficient in the city. You're going slower there, so why shouldn't all cars be like that? These numbers are lower than the Insight, but Prius is a much bigger car, one which could replace 90% of the SUVs, pickups and big cars most people drive without giving up anything but twisted ego-gratification. For me it will gratify my ego to be driving such a technically advanced and efficient car. Prius is also a SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle). The gas mileage translates directly into CO2 reduction, which is the main issue for me, plus other pollutants are 1/10 of normal new cars. The price is quite reasonable for that class of car, too. I put down my deposit and hope to take delivery in August. Excellent web site: Toyota Prius
Hasdi, I agree with alot of what you say. Why don't they just make the ICE engine run better. With the proton exchange mebrane fuel cell hydrogen (or lack of) a hydrogen infrastructure and sutabl storage system is a problem. With reformed hydrogen the reformers are bulky and expensive for reforming methanol or gasoline into hydrogen for a PEM. However the improvement in performance of an ICE engine powered vehicle will include a fuel cell IMHO, it just won't be a PEM. WHat it will be I think is a SOFC (solid oxide fuel cell) . Global Thermoelectric is supplying Delphi Automotive with SOFC stacks for a auxilliary power unit for cars. With the increasing electrical loads in vehicles (which will grow significantly over the next decade) and the switch to the new 42 volt (14/42 at first for many automakers) electrical systems brings a requirement for more power. Batteries are heavy, and the combined starter alternator that will allow for the start stop opeation you speak of only will produce power when the engine is running. A SOFC however can run easily off of gasoline (unlike a PEM whose reformer is very complex to use gasoline and has very little tolerance to CO poisoning), Global's fuel cell will run from propane, natural gas, gasoline/petrol, diesel etc. It will not provide propulsion power, but it will provide auxiliary power that will enable the engine to be shut off when the vehicle is not mobile. The reformate gas from the SOFC gasoline reformer can also be added to the ICE engines gasoline. The moisture in the reformate will help increase power, the hydrogen in it will make the engine burn more cleanly. The SOFC will also produce power from this reformate. With a PEM (Ballard) fuel cell all of the CO must be removed from the fuel before it can be used in a PEM fuel cell, in a SOFC, the CO is actually a fuel too. A SOFC is not poisoned from CO, it just makes even more power from it. Ford themselves I think is headed this direction. Ford is working on a hydrogen engine (much like BMW). Ford has said that the hydrogen for the engine could be from onboard storage or from reformed gasoline. Well the same fuel that is reformed from gasoline that can be used in this engine is the SAME fuel that can run a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. Delphi Auomotives believes perhaps they will receive twice the efficiency automakers are getting right now. With higher efficiency also comes reduced emissions. Beause a SOFC does not burn fuel alot of the harmful emissions that are present from combustion engines are not produced from a SOFC. Hybrids in my opinion will lead the way. A car with a gasoline engine and a SOFC Auxiliary power unit is the way I see it. It will take many years for the world to introduce a hydrogen infrastructure. While for is doing significant work with PEM's thewy are also doing alot (if not more) with hybrids. Ford is also racing to catch up to BMW with their technology. It will in my opinion be a combination of alot of these technologies that clean up the vehicle of today. Smaller gasoline engines which are propulsion only. Remove all the belt driven functions from the engine to reduce the drain that way the smaller engines can deliver the same performance. Items like breaks and power sterring will switch to electrical based systems rather than hydraulic systems which right now are a constant load of the engine. The combined stater alternator together with the engine management system, electronic valves, etc. will allow the engine to shut off when the car is not in motion. All the while however all the cars sterring, brakes, air conditioning, fans, radio, etc. etc. etc. will run off of electricity produce by the solid oxide fuel cell running from gasoline. Global Thermoelectric has a website at http://www.globalte.com , there is also alot of info on them at http://www.thenextwave.emerchantpro.com Iam confident that fuel cells are coming, the SOFC has the rare ability to complment existing technolgy for vehicle and it works with the energy infrastructure that exists today. Delphi is now developing new vehicle elctrical systems for Ford, based on this and the direction ford is taking with the hydrogen engine etc. I would thing that Delphi will work a SOFC auxiliary power unit into the Ford vehicles. Delphi is working currently with BMW and Renault with this SOFC APU that uses Global Thermoelectric's SOFC fuel cells. BMW will show a car this fall that has this APU in it. Regards, Chip
a) There is no other stuff in terms of dense/energy/danger like gasoline/gasoil
b) gas must be kept under pressure or kept to temperatures where pressure is moderate, leaks are often not easy to recognise
c) electricity in terms of batteries/accumulators - based on chemical reactions - have the risks of low inner impedance, that means: if the whole energy of Your battery reacts in half a millisecond into energy, because of an inner short-circuit or alike, You and Your car are never more, even not to identify. Gasoline/gasoil needs much more time to react(==burn). This low impedance problem is the *real* reason, why icreased energy dense of batteries or accumulators, wich have much more energy density as the usual and are still developped, can not be let into public release...
wbr oas
Brazil tried to use ethanol as a replacement for gas, but it didn't work because of several reasons: -Compared to current oil prices, ethanol is much more expensive. -The government had to subsidize ethanol prices in order to make it compete with gas. -Ethanol cars were difficult to start in cold mornings. The cars should have a small tank with gas, which was used to start the engine when it was below a determined temperature. -Sugar cane farmers had a monopoly over the production, just like OPEC, and when the government refused to raise the subsidies, they simply stopped providing alcohol to pumps, causing a major distress (this was in 1990's). After that, Brazilians lost confidence on the alcohol producers and slowly stopped buying ethanol-fueled cars, going back to gas-fueled ones. -The worst part is that planting sugar cane spoils the land, making it difficult to reuse it. It also uses land that could be used to plant food, not fuel, which is much more important for a 3rd world country. Conclusion: before we jump to the first apparently viable alternative, we must carefully study all its consequences, not only environmental but social, political and economical.
People don't like public transit because:
So long as combined transit is a PITA, people will want their own personal car. But since they know that they will *sometimes* want to carry more people in their car, they don't want to buy a tiny car that only holds one person. So they get a big car, and use it inefficiently most of the time (I'm guilty of this).
I think one thing that would greatly improve efficiency would be a tiny car that is designed to only hold one person, without much cargo, BUT can still go at freeway speeds, and be street-legal. If such an animal existed, and (this is the important point) was cheap enough, then people could easily get such a car *and* a second car for trips with more people. Then for trips where they know they are going alone, they can take the efficient one-seater vehicle.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
didn't need to have a gas station w/ diesel on every block. All I needed was one place that I'd go to across town once a week.
Thats fine until you go on a vacation of more then 500 miles. With diesel that isn't a big deal since it is a popular fuel. Propane has some infrastructure, you have to refuel when you can find a station, but if you plan for it you can make trips on propane.
Most fuels are not that popular. Your car might have a 500 range on methanol, but I challange you to drive your car across several states running only methanol. You have to have someone ship your fuel to drops along the way.
This is what I heard too. Actually when I read it they said something to the effect of "If the government would put more money into research, fuel cell engines for cars could be produced within 3-5 years."
I just had to give a short speech for a speech class last week. I did it on fuel cells. There are a lot of interesting developments going on with that technology. Apparently the only commercially ready fuel cells are phosphoric acid fuel cells (originally developed by NASA about 30 years ago I believe). There are several other types that should be ready within the next 5 years though.
They're also coming up with some interesting ideas for fuel sources. Powerball Technologies had one of the more interesting ideas.
Here's a few more links to check out:
Fuel Cells 2000
Commercializing Fuel Cells
Fuel Cells - Green Power. This is a 36 page PDF file from Los Alamos National Lab
Here's a bunch more.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Electricity. It's basically an electric car. The only advantage I see from this one is that instead of using an electric motor to compress the air (as you would do when it's parked at home), you can go to a fueling station and have it filled with compressed air directly, cutting down on refueling time.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Canada already has busses running on fuel cells. Made by Ballard, they're also running in Chicago. They say they'll have a car engine ready in the next few years.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Of course, if we'd come to our senses and explore nuclear energy properly and scientifically instead of telling horror stories about Chernobyl we'd be moving in the right direction.
Author James P Hogan maintains an excellent website, of special interest to folks in this discussion are his thoughts on energy.
From one of his articles:
A single 1,000 Megawatt coal plant releases something like 600lb carbon dioxide and 30lb sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere per second, and as much nitrogen oxides as 200,000 automobiles, all of which is estimated to cause 25 premature fatalities and 60,000 cases of respiratory complaints per year, per plant. In addition, it has to get rid of 30,000 truck-loads of ash annually--enough to cover a square mile sixty feet deep--full of carcinogens, highly acidic or highly alkaline depending on the kind of coal, and, ironically, emitting more radiation from trace uranium than a nuke is permitted to. That's a real waste-disposal nightmare for you.
Nuclear's not looking so bad, eh? ;)
--
Gasohol damages the internals of older cars. Just ask my family who had to replace a good number of hoses in our old station wagon after the energy crisis.
Gasohol is just ethanol (the stuff many of us drink) and gasoline (which few of us drink). It is not harmful to rubber. The hoses might well have needed to be replaced, but it was probably not due to ethanol in the gas. Besides, there are VERY FEW cars that old still running at all. That was 25 years ago!
Since gasohol is just gasoline and ethanol mixed there is no need to do either 1, 2, or 3. (3 is by definition!).
High grade ethanol will run an unmodified gasoline engine with no problem at all. (It will actually clean the carb). It can go in the same storage tanks (at the gas station) and pumped by the same pumps.
A number of companies sell gasohol now, they just don't call it that because people are afraid of anything invented after they were born. Read the fine print at a Stopn'Go for example. 10% ethanol for the mid and regular grade.
The logical step is to increase production of Ethanol and up the percentage of ethanol in gasoline.
I still want a cirrus SR20. I also hear that they are working on a 82octane unleaded avgas, no idea when if ever it will show up.
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
As for the efficiency, that is the correct figure. Shell Oils runs a fuel efficiency race at Silverstone Grand Prix circuit, each year. The ground is essentially flat, which helps. And remember, you only use fuel when accelerating or decelerating. Newton's First Law makes that clear.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
> Internal combustion is not the most efficient way of powering transport
Actually it is. That's why we use it. Of course this has no relevance to the discussion as to why we use gasoline. You said it yourself, steamers can be designed to burn almost anything, including gasoline.
As far as efficiency goes, we are actually talking about the cost of moving your ass to where ever it wants to sit. Much more has to be entered into the equation than just the cost of the fuel per unit of volume:
1) Energy density: gasoline+air beats almost everything.
2) Power per weight and volume(at small scales): This is a huge factor in efficiency and again gasoline+air in internal combustion, reciprocating engines beats almost everything. Can you guess why power plants, ships, factories and so on use steam based power plants at large scales? Why are most lawnmowers, motorcycles, model aircraft, etc. powered by gasoline+air+IC engines?
3) Cost of power plant: one more time.
4) Complexity of power plant AKA cost of maintenance: are we getting bored yet?
5) Safety AKA insurance costs: yes, gasoline+air can explode, but so can just about any system devised for storing energy. Afterall, that's what it's all about. Batteries can explode, overheat, leak and be *extremely* toxic when they do so. High pressure gas or liquid under pressure storage tanks can also leak or explode. Flyweels bearings can disintegrate, etc.
5)Useful life expectancy: how long does a battery last? How many pressurisation/depressurisation cycles can a high pressure tank take before it begins to fatigue? How much polluted air can a fuel cell breathe before it becomes corroded or clogged? How much does a new one cost?
6)Research & Development: how much will you have to invest, and then recoup in order to compete with gasoline+air+IC? So far it's obvious that not enough work has been done. Gasoline+air+IC has 90+ year head start in development and refinement over almost everything else.
Add to all of this the true cost of the fuel. That includes the obvious component cost of the fuel per unit. It also includes the cost of the time spent in actually getting it. It also includes the inconvenience or devaluation of the vehicle in operation, ie: "We can't take this car because it runs on XYZ and I don't know where we can get XYZ on that trip".
>The oil companies encouraged the car companies to use it because it locked people into using asoline
Hahaha, gasoline was a waste product that was regularly burned off at the refineries that were making fuel oil(for steam engines and heaters of all types) until the early car engine designers discovered that it had all of the properties (energy density, heat of evaporation, fluidity, liquid over desired temperature range, easily controlled ignition, etc.) that they needed. Only then did it become a "product". The fuel delivery systems became "monopolized" to use your word when the gasoline powered cars beat out everything else except for a few niche markets.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Last time I did it cost me $58 USD for a small car.
NOoooooooo!!! I like paying the inflated $1.50 per gallon of gasoline. It gives me great satisfaction watching the people next to me fill up thier SUV's and extended cab long wheelbase trucks with dual 20 gallon fuel tanks spending $70 to fill up. Its so they can make the daily commute to work 40 miles away each day for eight hours then come home again. Its the American Dream.
To ease my pain, I bought a motorcycle with a 4 gallon tank that gets 50 miles per gallon. Its funny though. Even though I only live one mile from work, I started riding more and spending more on fuel. It must be the American Way.
We're already experiencing rolling blackouts due to summer time demands(air conditioning). If we cannot support peak demand, how can we expect it to support cars that must be plugged in? I suspect many of the electric cars would even have to be plugged in during the day as they have such a limited range before needing a recharge.
Sure, it's easy to say "build more power plants", but the NIMBY factor makes it very difficult. No matter how safe they can be made, nobody wants a power plant near them.
NIMBY = Not In My BackYard
I read an article in a local newspaper this week, saying that price of natural gaz has doubled here in Québec/Canada... so i don't know if it's less expensive to use gaz instead of gasoline... I don't know Canadian gas company selling "GPL" (Gaz de Pétrole Liquéfié=Liquified Petrol Gas?) like in France, where there's bi-mode car that can run on GPL and normal gas.
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite free!
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
Hydrogen+oxygen is the 16th most energy dense compound (source: guinness book of records), so why don't we use that? It's cheap and easy to obtain, as it comes from water. Contrary to popular belief, creating the hydrogen+oxygen mix can be done in the car with electricity. Burning the hydrogen+oxygen produces water again so it's not like we're polluting at all. Just a little more heat and rain, but that's not much to pay for clean air, and both of those are trivial. Lastly, the standard engine blocks gasoline cars use can be used for hydrogen+oxygen (though most everything else would have to be changed). So, why don't we, the hacker community, be engineers by nature, come up with a decently easy way of converting cars to run on hydrogen+oxygen ,hydrolysized as needed with the water possibly coming from the air (maybe a second generation thing)? Oh, yah, that's right, we forget we could. GET OFF YOUR DUMB ASSES AND HELP US MAKE THE WORLD BETTER INSTEAD OF RELYING ON CAPITALISM TO DO IT FOR US!!! YOU KNOW DAMN WELL THEY WON'T!!!
The battery in today's electric cars isn't a little D-cell. It generally weighs many hundreds of pounds, and often is part of the car's chassis.
There is no other explanation for 80+ MPG cars existing but not being marketed or alternative fuel vehicals existing but not being properly marketed, if at all.
Alternate fuels will be popular and readily available when the fuel and power grid holders say so. And they won't say so until fossil-fuels have been dried up.
---
seumas.com
"When public transit becomes as convenient as private transit more people will use it.
If I actually lived and worked IN the city I'd use it. But some people don't live in the middle of the city and there is no
need for those people to pay more for the privelage of being able to travel. "
I've heard the argument that people who live in one city and work in another, or live outside the city they work in, should pay a huge tax for the privelige. Most urban centers have traffic problems that would vanish if people worked in the areas where they lived. Most suburbs do not have jobs available because we take for granted that the jobs are in the city, miles away. There could be incentives for people to work, or create jobs, in the communities where they live, instead of crossing distances and zigzagging around.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The Toyota Prius, at least, is a loss-making proposition. Toyota freely admits to losing money on every Prius they sell. They're using them to validate the technology in the real world (and figure out mundane things such servicing, reliability, and the like), get in some brownie points with environmentalists, while they work on the next version of the car, which is reputedly a huge improvement.
Toyota, Honda etc. don't throw this kind of money around if they don't think these cars have a real future.
Of course, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the US and Australia by a similar amount to these hybrids, you could just put a punitive tax on SUV's . . .
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The development of engines and methanol processing plant in Brazil started back in the late 70's, after the second oil crisis.
After a couple of years of producing unreliable engines, the auto-makers got their act right, and a methanol engine would be almost as good as a standard one.
But there were problems. The methanol engine would burn as much as 30/50% more methanol per kilometer than its gasoline counterpart. So the government had to offer high incentives to the consumer, even garanteing that the methanol price would never ne higher than 70% of the gasoline price. In the middle 90's this promisse was forgotten. ALso, methanol cars had fewer and lower taxes in the beggining.
The second problem was fuel availability. In Brazil, methanol is produced from sugar cane. During the late 70's/early 80's large sugar cane farms, generally backed by one or more processing plants, were developed throughout the country. But the oil price crisis went away, the state-owned oil prospecting company started to find large oil reserves under Brazil's continental platform and people started using gasoline cars again.
A more or less final strike in the methanol experiment came when methanol production felt, and some big cities started to have methanol supply problems. That scared consumers more than anything else.
Nowadays most people will not buy a methanol car, no matter how cheaper thay are, for fear of a fuel shortage.
Al in all, it was a large and successfull experience for some years. More than government or business cluelessness, the changes in the international markets were the real cause for its eventual failure.
Actually, the day of widespread use of diesel engines in the USA is not as far away as you think it is.
Because of new EPA requirements for diesel fuel to have sulfur content under 80 parts per billion (most diesel fuel in the US usually has around 1200 parts per billion), this makes it very viable for the Europeans to bring over their diesel-powered cars in a few years.
Once the new low-sulfur diesel fuel is widely available, Volkswagen/Audi, BMW and Mercedes-Benz plan to offer a large number of diesel-powered vehicles for US sale with advanced technologies such as common-rail high-pressure direct fuel injection and other new diesel engine technologies (they've also managed to lick the problem of particulate emissions and close-coupled catalytic converters dramatically reduce NOx emissions).
And don't think they slow, either. I suggest people drive the European-market BMW 330d; people were amazed by its very fast performance and also gas mileage approaching 40 mpg!
I also do agree that dieself fuel is more easily refined than gasoline; in fact, you can make diesel fuel equivalents from biomass, coal, oil tar, etc. very easily also. In fact, there are a number of oil companies now working on a motor fuel called SynFuel that has the combustion characteristics of diesel fuel, but burns extremely cleanly. Unlike regular diesel fuel, SynFuel can be made easily from biomass sources easily.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
One reason why we don't see more diesel-powered cars for sale in the USA is the fact that US-market diesel fuel has a high level of sulfur compounds in the fuel (usually 1200 to 1500 parts per billion), which can damage the advanced diesel fuel systems in and fuel injectors we are starting to see in Europe.
But with the EPA mandating strict limits on sulfur compounds in diesel fuel (e.g. under 100 parts per billion), then we can see things like common-rail injection systems and direct-injection systems more often. Curing the other big bugaboos of diesel fuel (e.g., NOx emissions and particulate emissions) is already easily done nowadays.
I've read articles on the amazing BMW 330d, a 3.0-liter L-6 turbodiesel with great performance and nearly 40 mpg fuel mileage in daily driving. I won't be surprised once the new EPA limits are in place that we see this model in the US market.
By the way, you might want to hear some great news: Alfa Romeo is returning to the US market! They are planning to import the current GTV/Spider model in about a years' time, and they also plan to import the replacement for the 156 model (that should be called the 157). And it's likely one of the "157" models will have a 2.7-liter V-6 turbodiesel belting out around 205 bhp and getting 35 mpg!
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Speaking of alternate energy sources, back in the 1980's there was a homeowner in Cameron Park, CA (this is 22 miles east of Sacramento, CA) who had a house with solar-powered EVERYTHING (water heater, electric generation, and so on) and saw his Pacific Gas & Electric bill go from US$12.80 to US$28.00! He was definitely -not- a happy camper considering he was just about completely off the electric grid! It's situations like this that give the utility company a big black eye.
In my opinion, 25 years from now the average automobile may be fuelled either by something called Synfuel (it burns like diesel fuel but has vastly cleaner burning characteristics) or by fuel cells that use hydrogen.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
There is an extremely simple and effective way to ensure there will always be gasoline available when it's needed: prices.
If you are right that we have a decade of gasoline left, then gas prices will rise steadily throughout the next decade. By the end of the decade (when gas is almost gone) prices will be so high that no one will be able to afford it, and so alternative fuel sources will be adopted out of necessity.
In practice, there isn't a single reservoir of oil, so there's never a point at which we "run out." It will simply get more and more expensive to extract, and as prices rise people will switch to other fuels.
It's worth pointing out that prior to the current spike, gas was at the lowest price in history. That's evidence that if anything oil supplies are more plentiful than at any other time in history. People have been predicting the imminent end of oil supplies since the 30's. But to raise the price now on the (likely false) assumption that it's going to run out quickly is as wrong-headed as lowering the price on the assumption that supplies will last forever.
Let the market work. As supplies get tight, prices will go up, and people will use alternative fuels. People in the future will have better alternatives than we do today, anyway, so it would be foolish for us to spend a lot of money rationing oil now when there might be a breakthrough in 10 years that makes oil obsolete.
I'd like to see the 280HP "Lycombing" - are you sure it's not a 180HP Lycoming?
/. flames about it all the time).
:-)
:-)
Yeah, my spelling sucks (I ignore
I've got an Archer with a 180HP Lycoming, wanna race?
Nah, you'd win.
(I trained in Pipers and Cessna 172s)
Sundowners are wonderful aircraft to fly and very comfortable for long trips, but fast they aint. Mine is fairly clean, but it still trues out at around 110 kts, a far cry from the 120 kts the Piper's I used to rent would do (and they were fixed gear).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Small aircraft engines still use leaded gasoline because it is VERY expensive to certify a new engine, and the market has not yet been able to justify it.
...
This was made worse by the litigation of the seventies and eighties, which nearly killed the General Aviation industry (production of nearly all small aircraft ground to a halt for over 10 years). The industry only came back after congress passed a law limiting aircraft manufacturer's liability to nineteen years. Almost immediately, the small aircraft industry turned around.
In addition, a number of patents have expired, freeing up previously locked down technologies.
Composites are helping to bring down fuselage weight (and thereby improve performance), so some additional weight in a liquid cooling system is more viable with modern materials than it was even ten years ago.
All of these are factors -- the final hurdle being, as noted in the previous post, an expensive and arduous certification process.
Not only must the engine be certified, but to retrofit into existing aircraft, it must be certified with that aircraft.
I doubt I'll be swapping out the 280 hp 100 LL burning lycombing engine in my Beech Sundowner anytime soon
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I don't understand all the fuss about gas prices in the US. It's so much cheaper here than almost anywhere else in the world. Go to the UK and fill 'er up and you'll see what I mean. Last time I did it cost me $58 USD for a small car.
I've read once (don't ask me for references) that officials in California and Canada are looking into the Brazilian experience so as to implement a similar program at home.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Give them a little time. This is still very hard technology to make cost effective for "small" applications, and there's a lot of active research going on. This has nothing to do with people "buying off" researchers or whatever. It just takes time to get new technology adequately designed, and we still have to figure out distribution networks for hydrogen.
Not that long ago, a fuel cell required several ounces of *PLATINUM*. This is not cheap stuff.
They're getting more efficient, but it's still very hard to make it work. I think GM announced that they hoped to have a viable car in production by 2005 or so.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Yes, natural gas prices have doubled in the past year or so, but so have oil prices.
The difference is that natural gas is produced in North America, and there is tons of excess reserves. So when prices shoot up due to increased demand, they drill more wells, and the prices drop back down.
I don't know about the efficiency of natural gas for cars, but for home heating, nothing beats it. (Well, solar is better, but the installation cost is prohibitive.)
This question honestly seems a bit strange to me. The major reason that we haven't moved to something else is that there is no reasonable alternative yet out there.
There are two kinds of problem, that of choosing what "new engine" to use and the costs of converting. Since someone else has already spoken very well about the latter problem I'll just say something about the former.
What's needed to power cars is a fuel that is highly portable, (e.g. no solar panels or wind turbines) capable of producing not only large amounts of power but high impulses, (i.e. no burning pure ethanol) is reasonably safe, (no nuclear-powered rocket engines) and reasonably inexpensive. Unfortunately, that rules out virtually all of the proposals on the market.
One of the things that has killed most of these (such as electric cars) is that they fail on one of the first two criteria. Insufficient power means that the car won't zoom fast enough, and yes, that is an issue; nobody is going to buy a car that tops out at 60mph. It's simply not a practical vehicle in a society built around major roads and highways. (Maybe in Europe or Japan one has a better chance) Insufficient portability means that there's not enough range, which requires any number of Rube Goldberg schemes to work around but always comes out to meaning that the car is good for commuting between a few nearby points with refueling docks already at them. This is why you only see electric vehicles driving around on large campuses or whatever.
Fuel cells suffer from an even more serious problems: They really don't exist yet. Cells capable of powering a car, satisfying anything even remotely like the above requirements, are still a few years away at least. Fuel containment, ease of recharging, inhibition of flammability, recoverability of fuel, and high-drain performance are all still significant issues. Once those are fixed, we get to talk about conversion costs.
The one thing that is making progress is hybrid systems, which use gasoline for the highest-drain parts of driving (acceleration) and switch to electric or other motors for low-drain parts. (highways, etc.) The technology isn't simple but it's advancing rapidly, and several such vehicles are already on the road. More are almost certain to come in the near future.
In most places electric power is just about as bad as gasoline. It's very likely that your local power company is burning fossil fuels to produce your power, mine certainly is, well we do have a nuclear plant, but it is never producing.
What I find amusing is that somehow people think its better to be disconnected from the problem, it's not so much their fault anymore. "Electric is clean, I don't know where it comes from, but my car produces no emmisions."
Personally I believe that the best long term solution is H2 as a fuel source. It's abudant (75% of the Universe's mass is hydrogen, and just about as clean as you can get, with the only byproduct of pure H2 burning being water. It can have the performance of gasoline, and I think that's key. People want a car that performs well. Most don't want the sluggish, egg shaped electric-hybird things I've seen.
The big problem with hydrogen, is that it has a really nasty rap because people think of the Hindenberg when they think of H2. The idea of stepping into anything powered by H2 is scary.
Hydrogen also has the potential to be distilled anywhere. I really wouldn't be terribly surprised if in a century, people produce their own.
Man wouldn't the oil industry hate that?
Check out The H2 information Network
It is also the way now.
You are probably aware of Home Power Magazine. Take a look at the current issue that is on there. They have an entire office with all the doo-dads running on solar - and the office is in Wisconsin. They do have a gas generator for backup, but, as they say, the thing has spent an entire 50 hours online in the past year. That is not a whole heck of a lot of time.
There are other reasons to do solar now - one solar panel can typically supply 100w to your home wiring system by means of something like the Trace Microsine Inverter. For under $1000 you can hook one of these panels up to your house wiring and feed it back to the grid. They are UL listed devices. Hook 'em up, plug 'em into an unused outlet, and sell it back.
Also, for every panel you have hooked up, you are effectively removing 1000 pounds of carbon from the air that would otherwise be generated by coal.
This is really one of the only ways to go when you think about it. Currently there are warnings about the Northeast part of the US starting to feel the strain from there just not being enough electricity available. If everyone had just one panel hooked to their house, that would be an ungodly amount of power being generated for these high use areas.
As an SUV hater (and a vegetarian :) I don't mind people who get trucks and SUVs because they need them (and having a ranch, living outside an urban area, etc. qualifies).
It is the yuppies and soccer moms, that get them because they want to drive a Sherman tank around on the freeways, that I hate. The "fuel crisis" of the 70's shifted emphasis on smaller more fuel efficient cars, with safety parameters designed for hitting other cars of roughly equal height. Now, the majority of new cars sold in the US are SUVs, which annihilate smaller fuel efficient cars in accidents, and have bumpers at about head level for my car. Most of these SUVs are for commuting in populated areas, by people who do not need them (IMO).
The insurance industry needs to start charging an INSANE amount of money for covering urban commuters with SUVs (because there will be lawsuits at some point based on the ideas I've just presented that will force them to), since the probability of small cars hitting a big SUV (or getting hit by) is MUCH greater than it was 10 years ago.
I'd also like to know exactly how much the current increase in (U.S.) gas prices can be directly attributed to the shift back to gas guzzling vehicles.
(To original poster, nothing against you. You are welcome to your SUV. I don't need one daily, but I sometimes rent one if I go on a trip to the mountains)
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Surely those that choose an SUV (and pay the price) are choosing it for what they think is in their best interest. And for quite a few it is justified. But is it really justified for over 50% of new car owners in the US? Surely SUV owners are safer in accidents with small cars (not necessarily with other SUVs), but their liability should be higher, since they may CAUSE far more injuries than a smaller car (and insurance must account for that, even in "no-fault" states). Your medical bill equation left out that term. So there certainly is no justification for charging the same for accident insurance. I personally think the minimum liability insurance requirements should be set higher for larger vehicles (and probably everyone in general) to account for this.
Please remember my argument was centered on urban and commuter use of SUVs, in a discussion about fuel use. Driving an SUV may be safer (until everyone has an SUV) but their high popularity does put fuel efficient vehicles at risk, and is part of the equation I must consider when deciding whether I want to buy a new breed of fuel efficient car and drive it on the same highways as all the SUVs.
As for vans and station wagons, well, you are right, they absolutley suck in terms of safety, fuel efficiency, and just about everything else but getting laid in (and they aren't exactly mate attractors anyway). But a minivan-type thing could be a safe acceptible alternative, if it were not for the high risk of getting hit by something bigger.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
And America will spend the forseeable future bitching about how expensive electric cars are, bitching (and suing) when they want to build a nuclear power plant within 500 miles of our house, spend every other waking moment bitching about how high gas prices are, bitching about OPEC, and continue sending every drop of oil in Alaska straight to Japan.
Dear fellow Americans,
Gasoline and the US Mail are the best deals around. Shut your collective pie holes. Gas is pumped out of the ground, shipped across the planet, refined, and sold for about the same price as water, which last I checked, fell from the sky.
-B
Has anybody mentioned CIDI yet?
If you want something that's signifigantly more economical and environmentally friendly than gasser engines, and that's available now, and doesn't cost way too much, and that's even *fun to drive*, then Compression Ignition Direct-Injection (CIDI) engines are where it's at.
Modern direct injection diesels are all over Europe, but thanks to poor market perception and yet poorer fuel quality, North America hasn't caught on yet. The best example that you can find in the U.S.A. is Volkswagen's wonderful TDI motors. More manufacturers will offer CIDI alternatives in the very near future.
Performance is quite good. Even though a 1.9-liter TDI only produces 90HP, it produces as much torque as a larger-displacement gasser engine -- and torque is more important, IMHO. Also, the maximum torque is available at about 1750RPM. You get power where at the revs you visit most.
There's a lot of scoot in there, if you tweak your driving habits just a bit. You won't win every drag race, but you can sure pass on the expressway with authority. Many TDI owners have modded their vehicles for performance, with surprising results (see Fred's TDI club below).
Emissions are impressive. Save for NO2 and particulates, TDI motors have lower emissions than gassers in the other four categories. Even so, the particulate levels are very low compared to the sooty old passenger diesels that you're used to seeing -- they rarely "smoke".
Puegot is developing a particulate trap that will further reduce this category of emissions. That can be retrofitted to existing CIDI cars, and will certainly come on newer models. There's a lot of research going on, but the phony enviro-types such as Gore in the U.S. certainly haven't been promoting it.
Fuel economy is very good. Many TDI owners report 49-52 MPG regularly, even with some spirited driving. Did I mention that diesel fuel is often cheaper than petrol? That's exactly why so many Europeans drive CIDI cars... both fuels are hideously expensive there.
Also, CIDI motors use very little fuel at idle, unlike gassers... so, they're good for the city, as well as the highway. It's very hard to stall a TDI. =-)
Maintenance on CIDI engines is lower -- there's no ignition system, for instance. If you change your timing belt every 40-50K, a TDI motor should last 500,000km easily. Contrary to popular belief, modern diesels are easy to start, even in the extreme cold. They were designed to work in Northern Europe, so they would have to! =-)
Everything else aside, alternative fuel availability is the real holy grail here. You can run on straight dino-diesel, or mix in some veggie-based biodiesel, or even work in some natural-gas based synthetic diesel. In a pinch, you could run several other substances. There's lots of room for future development here.
As long as the cetane level is high enough, and the lubricity is sufficient to make it past the injector pumps, &c. then it'll probably run great. Modern gassers (the ones that I like, anyways) will never, ever run on anything but premium petrol, made from dinosaur oil. That's the biggest difference for me!
Don't get me wrong, I like other automotive technologies, too... I just happen to like CIDI better. Especially since I can get a practical car with a TDI motor in the U.S. today for less than $20K.
The internal combustion engine is far from dead. Don't let Al Gore kill it off... that would be a huge mistake. Like a previous poster said, diesel contains more energy than petrol. It's also easier to refine, so there's less pollution and energy needed to make it compared to petrol.
For more than you ever wanted to know about CIDI (and VW TDI's in particular), check out Fred's. Be careful, it can be addictive. But so are french fries, for that matter. =-)
Fred's TDI Club
hey CIDI enthusiasts, did I leave anything out?
-cheers, fattyfox
We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone. -management
Because the electricity for batteries is reasonably cheap, but the batteries themselves are very expensive. Who pays for them?
OK, assume it's an investment on the part of the "electricity providers." They buy a couple tons of batteries, and you can go to any other station in their franchise, and swap out discharged battery for a charged one. They charge you for the service (forgive the pun), and put in some extra percentage to cover the price of the battery. Sounds great!
Except, the problem is, powerful, rechargable batteries don't last very long. And how do they know that the box you're bringing back as one of their discharged batteries really is? Powerful batteries tend to be a big case filled with smaller cells, sometimes with "smart" controllers that switch around bad sub-cells. You could be yanking out the insides, and returning them a battery case filled with gravel or something.
So the solution has to be some kind of internal security device. This drives the price up even higher.
OK, and what happens if you're driving through rural no-where, and there's no franchises of CityVoltageBatteriesInc? If the battery stations have exchange agreements, you're fine. But what that really means is that the Mega Battery Conglomerates will survive, and there will be no Mom'n'Pop battry stations.
And you know that they're gonna mess everything up in the name of competition. Bob's SuperCharge will tell you that Tina's ChargeYouUp doesn't fully charge the battery, and worse, smears some contact-cleaning paste on the terminals that'll shorten the life of your car. Tina, of course, will tell you that ChargeYouUp has a patented phased charge cycle that manages to put more high-energy electricity in your battery, yielding that extra few miles per charge.
All these problems have solutions, of course, but currently lack the political will and/or the price point incentive for anyone to implement the solution.
-
bukra fil mish mish
-
Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
I'm not a creationist or a scientific ignoramus. I don't care about the oil companies.
:( )
I know the Earth transfers heat and mass with the greater universe (especially through the sun, which shines on us and allows plants to grow and thereby life and evolution, even intellegent life and computers).
But, the unavoidable conclusion of this intellegence is that it will use all available energy it can. And this use of energy will always create entropy somewhere.
This is a philosophical point, not an indictment for love of petroleum products. Let's say you use solar power. As that technology currently stands, you have to replace the 10% effecient solar panels every couple years, causing about the same polution as the large, heavy batteries that also need replacement. Arguing that "innovation" will "solve" these problems is exactly why I proposed the philisophical point that no matter how the energy is harvested, somewhere entropy is created by its use. This entropy, in the end, will lead to heating the Earth, almost by definition. Waste heat, as discussed in many forums, is an inevitable consequence of any increase in energy use.
So what WOULD I recomend? Greater efficiency of energy that's being used now is the only reasonable course of action we have. This requires our devices be more expensive to build, but will work out in the end. Like the Honda Insite, which costs $18,000 (about $5,000 more than a regular car), which is a dual gas/electric hybrid, and gets about double the normal gas efficiency due to lighter materials, brake energy capture, and electric motor efficiencies.
Entropy is created SOMEWHERE when energy is harvested. Therefore we have to be careful and use our energy wisely and efficiently. Oh, and let the prices on gas rise. I bought the most fuel efficient car I could find (the ford escort) and will weather the rise better than most. (Too bad I don't have public transportation in this area
-Ben
Right. The best alternatives for gasoline are deisel, Natural gas, and arguably methenal. After that, the increasingly nutty ideas are Methane, Hydrogen and Electricity, or even solar.
Unless you've got a moped weight-car with as much of a footprint as a truck, solar power doesn't generate enough electricity. Electricity simply redistributes where the carbon is burned, and Hydrogen is very unstable (and can't be found in a mine like Petroleum). The others all contribute greatly to global warming (especially methane) and are more expensive to get.
Do you want to use Nuclear Power? That would quickly make a toxic, radioactive mess.
So if you're looking to solve the global warming problem, the expense problem, or any problem, by eliminating the dominant energy source, remember the second law of thermodynamics: "Any change in a closed system will tend to make the system more entropic." (more random) Basically any method of generating energy will negatively affect the world in some way (except solar, which negatively affects the sun, slowly).
-Ben
There's not really a good fuel source to switch to yet. Electric cars are fine, until you realize that you pollute more generating the electricity. Ethanol's great, but even if all the corn in the U.S. was put towards ethanol, it would only satisfy 4% of the demand for gas. Yeah, that's right. 4%. Hydrogen fuel cells-I love them , but they're not viable yet. The acid in them is extremely corrosive-I'd hate to see an accident where the acid spills. You can't turn them off either-kind of pointless to have a fuel cell running 24 hours a day. Also , hydrogen can't exactly be found on the ground in the pure form. You can have electrolysis of water, but then you're back to the power plants. Only the algae that produces hydrogen is really viable, but that's quite a ways down the road where everyone has an algae pond on top of their house. I think we need to get over electric cars, and focus on hydrogen fuel cells-it's our only shot.
Colin Winters
I know for a fact that many many times in the twentieth century, there have been inventors who came up with carburetor designs that enabled ANY vehicle to get 300 miles to the gallon or even more. My dad knew one such person personally. He invented a 300MPG carb, tried to market it, and instantly got bought out by Ford, I think it was. They bought his design for $50,000 (this was in the 50's, when 50 grand was actually worth something :) and then smothered it. Nobody heard of it again.
And if you really want to get into conspiracy theories, I suggest you just do a web search for "zero point energy". There are so many ways to use ZPE it's sickening, considering the fact that NONE of them have been even mentioned in mainstream media (owned by big business). It is possible to take damn near any existing electrical motor, add a few parts, and turn it into a generator that runs itself without any fuel. You just give it a spin and it runs forever. But guess what happens when someone tries to patent such a device? The patent office replies, "Oh. That, by definition, is a perpetual motion machine. We can't give patents on those. Sorry." They don't even bother testing the patent's claims, or try building one themselves, or even let the guy demonstrate it... they just refuse to patent it and move on. In New Zealand, a man who tried to patent a perpetual motion machine in 1970 suddenly found himself dead, and all his research materials and lab supplies and equipment just mysteriously vanished. History is replete with examples of this tyranny, and just about all of it is the big business collusion that keeps the oil producers making their trillions. What would happen if everyone alive knew they could get a generator the size of a small desk, put it in their garage, and cut the power lines to their house, and never have to buy fuel or pay for electricity ever again? Why, it would destroy Exxon, Texaco, Shell, and all of OPEC just about overnight. Can't have that. It's financial evolution: "Survival of the richest."
So, again, this is something you'll have to go do research on. Explaining how to convert a motor into a perpetual-motion generator is well beyond the scope of a slashdot post. Again, do "zero point energy" and "ZPE" searches on Metacrawler and prepare yourself for enlightenment.
Do not simply see the phrase "perpetual motion machine" in this post and scoff immediately. Science and physics doesn't even know what magnetism or gravity is, yet it claims to be able to state with absolute certainty that perpetual motions machines are impossible?? The sheer arrogance is staggering. "Yes, well, we realize we only understand about 0.01% of how the universe works, but we know you can't have perpetual motion. It's just preposterous." Give me a break.
Does anyone see a pattern here? Humans are so stupid that they believe things just because they come out of an authority figure's mouth. Think for yourselves! Do your own research! It sickens and saddens me to know that the salvation of humanity is so close, yet people refuse to reach out and grab it just because they've been brainwashed all through school and childhood to not believe in it. I mean, please... How far would we have gotten if Columbus had just believed what the scientists told him without question instead of being brave and intelligent enough to go find out on his own? What would the world be like today if Pasteur hadn't thought "Hmm; I know people are going to laugh at me and perhaps worse for publishing the results of my research, but I have to do it because it'll save lives"? What if Orville & Wilbur Wright had just given up because everyone kept telling them that only birds could fly because God gave them wings and not us? Who knows how many times in history some brilliant bit of new thought has been squelched just because the person who thought it up believed the rhetoric against it? Say people had listened to Nicola Tesla instead of destroying him. How much further along would science be today if he'd been allowed to produce his electromagnetic shield, or his car that ran on nothing more than the electricity in the air? He had a car with a black box in it that had a lot of antennae sticking out of it; no engine, no fuel tank, no nothing, and all of this verified. He drove it around for many many years. But how many people have heard of it? It's just one of the truly innovative inventions of history that's been crushed out of existence by Those In Power who'd rather keep making money than let us have something that will bring pollution to a COMPLETE END. There never should have BEEN any pollution; Tesla and Marconi had perpetual motion generators 100 years ago but they went nowhere with them. Westinghouse destroyed Tesla. Even the Smithsonian (run by You Know Who Inc., of course) is trying to bury Tesla in obscurity in favor of Edison's crappy stab at electrical production.
So. Does anyone believe me? How many of you can break through your years of schooling and conditioning and brainwashing to see the real truth? How many of you will go further, and see for yourselves what is possible in the field of fuelless power generation? 'Cause I can't take much more of this. If you people allow yourselves to be ruled and crushed by big business and politicians, there's no hope for humanity. We'll just keep falling farther and farther into slavery until there's no more clean water, no more clean air, and no more fossil fuels left... but you can bet that as soon as the earth runs out of resources, big business will suddenly go "Oh, looky here! We've just discovered perpetual motion machines ARE possible! Now bow down and thank us for saving you!" and you fucking sheep will do it.
Baaaaaaaa-aaaaa-aaaaa-aaaaa.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Ironically, I had a lot of discussions about alternative fuels when I was out in the midwest last week. Why not ethanol? It can be made from just about anything organic (it seems..I heard mention of garbage, paper, corn, wheat, etc). It burns cleaner. They have 85% ethanol cars now (a few from ford and chrysler) that appear to run jsut as well, good speed, good efficiency. E85 (as they call 85% ethanol) had a 106 octane at the pump when I looked. What's the catch? We have the most farm land of anywhere I can think of in the world. We have a grain surplus. Most importantly, it's renewable. What's the problem here???
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
There's are a couple of good reasons Middle Eastern crude is so much cheaper than ours, and they have nothing to do with labor cost:
1. They have really, really good oil. This means that there are a lot of light fractions suitable for things like gasoline, with very little of the tar and other goop that reduces output and creates environmental concerns. This directly translates to ME oil producing more product per barrel of crude, and at a much lower price. Some Mubaraq *crude* is light enough to be lit with a match! This difference in quality is one reason why even having to drag it halfway around the world doesn't kill the economic advantage.
2. It's really, really easy to get to. There's an old joke in the oil business that says "Sure their oil is cheap - all they have to do is poke a stick in the ground to get it." This is not much of an exaggeration. Complex (and consequently expensive) drilling methods are almost never needed there - a big contrast to the directional drilling, complex fracturing techniques, and secondary/tertiary recovery techniques that have sidelined so many US oilfields, especially here in Texas.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Pat:
I'm interested in your electric car - that's a pretty good hack in its own right. Do you have a page up for it?
BTW: Thanks for both Pilot DOC and the NetWinder work - netwinder.org taught me a lot about Linux on other platforms. Maybe Red Hat will buy Corel after all - someone should, you're a pretty good deal right now... Best wishes.)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Car & Driver had a side-splitting story about an attempt to travel coast-to-coast in a natural gas-powered car a few months back.
It was no picnic, and the guy's lucky he didn't blow himself up, but real drivers would do the same. It points out the importance of infrastructure, even for something so universally available as NG, and the pain that goes with being an early adopter.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Although there are many people out there spinning comely stories about the wonderfulness of hydrogen and fuel cells, the harsh reality is that hydrogen makes economic sense now or in the foreseeable future.
Car and Driver had an excellent set of articles exposing these realities a few months ago, and talking about what's possible in the lab vs. the real world.
Check out:
Hydrogen, cleanest of all no-pollution myths.
By PATRICK BEDARD (August 1999)
and
Fuel-cell miracles and urban sprawl.
By BROCK YATES (August 1999)
and this article, which points out the extraordinary staying power of a continually improving internal combustion engine:
The Survivor
News of the demise of the internal-combustion engine is greatly exaggerated. Again.
By PATRICK BEDARD (December 1998)
Add to this that one big 3 automaker has pointed out how electrics are both hideously expensive and subsidized by thier makers by remarking that, " the absolute cheapest way for us to get batteries for an electric car is to go buy one from Toyota and throw away the car." Somehow I don't think Toyota would let them do that for very long...
Bottom line: We still use gasoline engines because they are teh best technological solution to the problem. They may not always be, but they are likely to remain so for the next several decades, anyway.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
There's a LOT of innovation in Diesels that we don't see here in the US. (The VW TDIs being about all that's for sale here.)
Not only is range stupendous (the TDI wagon can go 800 miles before refueling!), but some manufacturers are even managing to deal with the problems of sluggish Diesel performance.
Look folks, when Alfa Romeo starts building Diesel cars, you know there's something afoot! (Italian cars are a sickness from which I've never recovered - I sure wish I could buy a new Spider or GTV here.)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
This is conspiracy theorist bunk! If you've got a clean, effiecient, cost effective alternative, then by all means go sell it and make billions.
But you don't do you? Niether does anyone else.
I suppose you think we'd all have flying saucers if the auto/oil/govt conspiracy hadn't suppressed the Dean drive, right? Time for a reality check, dude - those "much cleaner and more powerful energy sources" don't exist, or someone would be making money off of them.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
O.K. time for another reality check:
SUVs use somewhat more gas than cars, but not a lot. Most modern SUVs get better mileage and pollute far less than many cars from the 80's - go check the figures yourself. The much-maligned Ford Excursion actually offers one of the cleanest-burning engines on the market, and is officially classed as an LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle).
SUVs are in no way responsible for the increase in gas prices. I'm no SUV apologist (I'm neither for nor against them - I prefer Ferraris), but let's stick to facts here.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Let's see, it's nearly 100 degrees out there today, and oh, yes, Austin has a lot of steep hills. Sure I could ride a bike to work (to one of my offices, anyway), but I'd smell like a goat when I got there, and be worn out on top of it.
Cars make far more sense than any other form of transportation for most locales. And actually, cars are a quite efficient way of moving around - todays cars are an order of magnitude more efficient and three orders of magnitude cleaner than the cars of the 1960s.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
My husband and I have a GM EV-1, an all-electric car, which we love. It has great acceleration and sufficient range (about 120 miles)for commuting. Usually, we charge it in our garage, but we've also used public chargers, such as the ones at my husband's workplace (NASA) and at Fry's.
You can already buy half-electric cars [...]
You do realize that they still run on gasoline, right?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
they're no match for gluttony.
I understand there are supply factors involved, but if you look around at the cars people are driving, you've got to wonder.
Some years ago when I worked in the non-profit environmental field, I was going to buy a car. Since I didn't particularly want to be a hypocrite, I asked an automotive engineer friend how to figure out which cars have the best emissions. Without batting an eye, he says, "Get a car with good gas mileage." Makes sense -- if you don't burn it, it doesn't muck up the place with emissions.
Fast forward to present day. I'm a fairly big guy, so I can't shoehorn myself into the tiniest econoboxes, but for chrissakes, people are driving HUMUNGOUS cars like the Lincoln Navigator. I drive a several year old escort that gets a bit over 40MPG on the highway, probably just north of 30 overall with the mix of driving I do. My brother, on the other hand, drives a freaking Ford Expedition, a car which is probably easily four times as heavy and probably gets about half the mileage, just to haul his carcass around town.
If all the people who drove my brother's kind of car who could just as easily get away with my kind of car (e.g. they don't tow a boat or drive offroad) switched, how much would you want to bet that gas prices would be way lower. It bugs me when politicians get up saying they're going to investigate the oil companies because of high gas prices. For obvious reasons, they can't get up and say you get what you deserve, you jackass, for driving a flagrantly wasteful vehicle.
I think fuel cells powered electrical hybrids have a great deal of promise for both fuel economy and emissions. However, if people insist on going to buy milk in trucks that could be used tow spacecraft out of the vehicle assmbly building, then we'll still be bitching about gas prices.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why don't you take your social engineering somewhere else?
Like it's going to put a crimp in our lifestyle to have to drive a car smaller than the state of Missouri.
If people care about the effects of their gas powered vehicles then they will demand alternatives which will eventually become available (in fact, they will pay a premium for them).
Actually, it's more like the prisoner's dilemma. Most people DO care. They would like to see a world with lower gas prices, less pollution, less traffic, easier parking, more greenspace, less noise, and fewer fatal accidents. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of folks would be willing to buy a smaller, more efficient vehicle if this would do the trick.
The fact is, it won't, because you need a good hunk of everyone else to do the same thing. So, you can either opt out and enjoy the benefits of a very large, inefficient car, or you can opt in, and hope that others to do the same. Looked at in isolation, I can get big personal beneifts from creating a cost that, because it is shared among the public, is small to me.
By taxing gas guzzling cars, you are iternalizing the public costs of driving a gas guzzler. This is a much more benign approach than banning gas hogs outright.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
As the current gasoline price increases have shown, the demand for gasoline is very very inelastic.
Over what timeframe?
The fact is, people drive where they want to go. It is the choice of vehicle that drives gasoline demand. In the eigthies there was a trend towards more efficient cars. Gas prices plummeted in the 90's and people started driving gas hogs again. If the current prices stay up, then we'll see smaller more efficient cars come on the market.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
is part of the car's chassis
That's great. So when the battery wears out you have to throw away the car?
I've always wondered why one of the objections to electric cars is the battery recharge time. Why not have battery stations where you can go exchange your low battery pack for a freshly charged one?
they don't produce the kind of power most people want. you could use a Honda Insight but why don't you have one? because it has 63 horsepower, that's why. it's slow...
when Audi releases a fuel-cell powered TT with 250 horseys, i'll be on the waiting list, until then,.. i'm sticking with the gasoline powered I-4!
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
5. Never trust air you can't see
4. The combustible engine was the greatest invention ever. We intend to keep it that way.
3. I'm a rich and powerful executive: I dont need a damn slogan!
2. Killing vegetation now so your descendants will have oil thousands of years from now.
1. Fuel cell, shmool cell: we can't make $100 billion a year on that!
Believe in things of which no person has ever learned
It is Ethanol, not Methanol, that is used in Brazil. Methanol is highly toxic, for one thing, and Brazil's alcohol production comes from sugar cane, which gives you ethanol.
And the cars do not accept both. You have to chose either gasoline or alcohol.
Aside from that, the reason why gasoline is used is really simple: it's the cheapest available, for now.
(8-DCS)
Brazil uses ethanol, not methanol.
:-)
But, then, this stuff evaporates. Gasoline evaporates too. You simply don't let it on the open.
(8-DCS)
The energy density for either ethanol or gasoline is incorrect. Brazilian ethanol-based cars had efficiency only 30-50% inferior to gasoline (range -- power was always much more a function of the engine).
(8-DCS)
I wanna know why in the mid 1970's one could buy a cheap little Honda Civic that got 50mpg. 25+ years later we've advanced all the way to 70mph for an EXPENSIVE "hybrid" Honda?
.zip file down and you'll find either comma or tab-delimeted files. Import to your favorite spreadsheet and see line 505, column L (or 12 if you've got numbered columns) of the file called 78FG.DAT.
There's virtually no value to the Insight beyond it's EPA numbers! No cargo space, only carries 1 (one!) passenger...
25 years of arguably the best automotive engineering the planet has ever seen and THAT's all we got for it?
I smell a rat.
References/Resources:
Historical and current data and abaility to compare vehicles at fueleconomy.gov.
Toyota Prius & Honda Insight stats
Here's all the info I could find at the EPA. They have data going back to only 1978.
Break this
(And a methanol burner, that maybe even comes with its own still - throw vegetable peels and grass cuttings in the top, out comes methanol, ain't biomass fuels cool - looks even better.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I spent a couple of years working for a company which writes software for E&P (exploration and production) in the petroleum industry. I saw a little bit of the cyclic economy of the industry and learned a little about the way it operates.
Basically, the global energy situation is controlled by the perceived oversupply of available oil, primarily from the Middle Eastern producers, and especially the Saudis. The price of oil is somewhat related to the costs of recovery. (There are oil reserves controlled by western companies for which recovery costs are higher, but which could be brought into play in the event we were cut off from the Middle Eastern supply. Also, even though the Middle Eastern nations have the lowest recovery costs for the best oil, even they couldn't sell at a loss for too long.)
More or less, though, the dominating factor in the price of oil is the large and cheaply recoverable supply of the Middle Eastern countries. They are only able to keep the price up to the degree to which other countries will not pursue other recovery options under their control (which comes into play as the price rises) and to which they can agree with each other to limit production rather than seeking individual national gain by selling more at a cheaper price.
Oil has a lot of economic intertia, and is practically an energy bargain at this point in time. Business and Industry doesn't care so much about efficiency when there exists a cheap oversupply of the energy source. Development of alternative energy sources will be relatively stifled by neglect as long as this is the case.
Of course, the view is short-sighted as is often the case for business, which seems to operate on a quarterly outlook. The oil reserves, while still potentially vast, are ultimately non-renewable in any reasonable time scale. Business will refuse to acknowledge environmental costs until they are enforced upon it as a normal course of action. However, it appears that increasing use of fossil fuels has some risk with respect to significantly altering the atmosphere with unknown effects on an already complex situation.
Other than the environmental effects, I don't see much wrong with consuming petroleum resources. However, it seems like we've reached the point where we're going to need to change some social priorities in order to protect the environment against our current and growing level of consumption.
Mryll
Why? Because big corporations run our government. Nuff said.
You think we really wouldn't be all driving clean vehicles that much better mileage, or better yet, have better public transportation systems, and using much cleaner more powerful energy sources, if big industry didn't have politicians' hands in their pockets? Government subsidizes this bullshit instead of aggressively trying to find better energy sources.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"If someone were to build disposable cars, designed to last 3-4 years, using this ultra-efficient technology, you could throw away a good percentage of the gas-guzzlers."
We already have disposable cars. Do you think the automobile industry wants our cars to last longer? Hell no. And anyway, say we did have more disposable cars. How the hell would throwing away more cars possibly help the environment? Sure, a lot of a car can be recycled, but there is still a lot of junk that will just end up in a land fill.
"I can't blame the markets for pandering to demand. They're there to make money, not save the world. If most people want to turn precious reserves into pollutants, for no good reason, then the markets will respond and provide the means to do so."
Markets and demand are intimately tied. In the 70s we thought we could only buy gigantic boat-sized cars that got 10 mph and gruesomely killed passengers in any sort of serious accident. It took people doing some muckraking and bringing this to the press and really fighting government to get anything changed in the first place (_Unsafe at Any Speed_, Raph Nader).
So, no, I can't say I don't blame the markets. The markets spew toxic chemicals into the air and poison the ecology in various ways, and exploit third world workers. So YES, I blame the markets. I blame Americans for being all to willfully ignorant and greedy. I blame the money that pays the media and government to shut up.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
And guess who owns the patents for these hybrid and more effecient fuels? You guessed it, the automobile and oil industries. And their sitting their rich fat asses on them. Now THAT is an abuse of the patent system.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Brazil uses 100% Ethanol Gas. Why don't we in Canada use it too? Well, ethanol at 20 below zero celcius tends to freeze.
What's my point? Well. There are alternatives. But like the Mac: it's just too damn expensive unless tonnes and tonnes of people use it.
JLC
What I'm trying to point out is that there's a lot more involved than simple efficiency. Electric cars looked great on paper, but a large scale implementation would have potentially overstressed the generating power of several regions, thus requiring more big, ugly, polluting coal fired plants to be built. Why coal? People start screaming and protesting when they hear "nuclear", most feasible hydro sites are in use, and other "alternatives" like solar and wind are only feasible in limited geographic areas and require large tracts of land to place the collectors on. This land may not be usuable for anything else. Alternative fuels would be great - the "biodiesel" stuff seems to show great promise. More "exotic" technologies like fuel cells are showing promise as well, but are still in the early stages of commercial development. There's several companies that are supposed to have a fuel cell on the market by this fall that is designed to power a house. If they can be as reliable and clean as the designers claim you will start seeing lots of them in use, especially in rural areas. I would love to have a clean, reliable source of power that didn't require the time/money investment of modern "small scale" solar or hydro units. A fuel cell does, of course, require a source of fuel but most rural residences have them - they either have access to natural gas lines or they already have a tank used for storing gas (either gasoline or propane/natural gas). Depending on the efficiency of the fuel cell (natural gas is actually rather expensive when you're not on a pipeline. We have a 500lb tank, and I think it costs $300-$500 dollars to fill it up, but that will last 6-8 months depending on the weather and how much we cook - the stove is gas fired as well). If they could be efficient enough where a 500lb tank would provide 8-12 months worth of electricity, possibly w/ a small battery system to handle surge loads, then I'd be very interested. On the other hand, if that same tank is only going to last a month then it's going to be far too expensive. It also must be 100% reliable or be able to be repaired/replaced relatively quickly at a reasonable price. If your fuel cell malfunctions, and there's nobody to repair it within 200 miles, what good is it? If the only possible "repair" in all cases is replacement of a $8000 unit, what good is it? Liquid fuel seems to be here to stay (at least in the immediate future). The infrastructure for dispensing and shipping it is already in place, and current vehicles can be easily converted. Ethanol and bio-diesel may be the best option at this point in climates where they perform acceptably. I live in the Southeast US, so low temparatures are rarely a problem. :> Heat/humidity, on the other hand, is a sever problem. Fuels (or energy sources) that don't handle high heat/humidity will be useless in this area - 50% or higher humidity is the norm, and 90%+ humidity and 100deg heat isn't unheard of either.
What's the point of this long dialog? :> Well - there are alternatives, but there is no universal alternative that won't require major reworking of the fuel distribution system and/or private vehicles. High gas prices can actually be a good thing - the higher the prices of gas, the more incentive there is to develop alternatives and more efficient vehicles. Instead of writing your congressman to ask for controls on the price of gasoline, ask for research into alternatives.
ObTagLine: The more you run over the 'possum, the flatter it gets.
I seem to recall Dad and my Opa thinking of buildiing a hydraulic car, where the IC engines is running at a constant speed (that at which it has peak efficiency). When you brake, the motor compresses hydraulic chambers as you idle, and when you release the brake, all that pressure is immediately available for acceleration.
/. become 'news for grease monkeys'?)
There were other details, such as that the traditional brake-accelerator set of pedals wouldn't work without some mechanical shenanigans. But the main thing is that the motor is constantly running at peak efficiency.
Related to this, I also remember hearing about a guy (perhaps someone else can remember his name) who developed a carbuerator that flash-vapourised gasoline instead of merely spraying droplets of gas into the chamber. This resulted in far less wasted fuel going out the exhaust pipe. I don't know what became of this idea (I think it was a 70s or 80s thing), but the main problem is the saftey hazard of using those highly volatile vapours.
(BTW, when did
-JD
I think the real problem is that Gas has been so cheap in the US for so long. We have had it WAY too good.
It is like this with a lot of things. People scramble for huge home entertainment centers, pointlessly fast PCs with monster monitors, and every appliance under the sun. That's because electricity isn't outrageously expensive here. If it were, you'd start seeing a turn toward to realistic.
On the plus side, you wouldn't need to live next to 10 million polluting cars, producing a far higher level of emissions and with poorer control of toxic elements.
Typically only about 20-25% of the energy from an internal combustion
engine goes into use, the rest is dissipated as heat. With fuel
cells you make use of pretty much all of the energy available
overhead, so the comparable overhead is that of your power station,
which is much much better, typically about 70%.
The size of fuel cells is coming down drastically. A great advantage
to using electicity-based power is that if a much better battery
medium comes along, you don't have the infrastructure problems to
switching over that you do now switching from petrol to electricty.
People just switch over on a car-by-car basis.
The research is being done. I have a good friend that is working with a cheap way of mass producing solar cells. Right now they are at 10% effeciency, if they can hit 15% effeciency, which it may this summer, then it becomes more viable because they become easier and cheaper to produce.
As computing becomes more powerful the ability to simulate fusion plants becomes more viable, ~9 FLOPs per particle. We do need to keep funding that research though, nuclear physics research is a dieing field in the US (other than weapon production) because it doesn't get funded. I was surprised that the laser at Lawrence Livermore Labs was produced.
I hate to place a rant here but it seems suited so.
<rant>
One area of scientific research that would push the development of a better source of energy is space research. The ability to power a space craft to other planets and for space exploration will require new sources of power. The technology that we have today is, although adequite, not at the level that would allow for "affordable" and effecient space travel.
By funding the space program the research for better power plants would follow, and would approach it from non-standard directions.
</rant>
Research is being done. The US just isn't funding it as well as they should.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Although both Honda and Toyota have come out with hybrid cars, one limiting factor is price. The Honda Insight costs > $19000 and the Toyota Prius conts >$20000. Sure, they are first generation vechicles, but if they aren't shown as profitable then they will probably be deep sixed.
Personally, if I wasn't a poor student that can't afford to spen $19000 on a car, I would buy one of them. The Insight has a 10.5 gallon tank, and can go 61 miles/gallon in city driving. Imagine not having to fill your gas tank for >600 miles.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Actually, cars are the problem. Today, a typical car is about 30-50% effectient, the rest of the energy is converted to heat. A typical oil powerplant is a lot more effecient than your average car. That is why the electric car would be a better choice than a gas car, in terms of air polution. Probably the only cars that are close to the effeciency of a powerplant are these new hybrid cars which burn at ~80-90% effeciency.
As for a new power source to replace the oil and coal, what do you suggest? Wind is highly ineffecient, on a blustery day maybe 40% of the windmills are moving, and considering the amount of space each windmill takes, 40% is not very good.
Solar, the typical solar cell is too expensive and is ~15% effecient. There are cells that have hit ~30% effeciency but those are ungodly expensive, to the point of not being practical.
Water power is extremely effecient, but at the same time it has its own eco problems. Water that exits from a hydroelectric plant is generally a lot colder than the water from the natural stream that it came from. This interferes with the spawing of fish, and other wildlife.
How about nuclear? Fusion is a good 100 years away, and fision is really expensive and I don't think that you want what they give back.
We are in a no win situation. Do you want to make a difference, buy one of the new Honda or Toyota hybrid cars. They are expensive but they are the most eco friendly vechicle we have today. Also, add solar collectors to your house, maybe your children can experience the benifit of the savings overrunning the cost, until then you will be helping save the planet.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Go hybrid. The Honda Insite uses a small effecient gas powered engine to charge the batteries it uses to go.
One small problem, it costs $19000 right now.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Hey, where'd you get that statistic? I learned in my Thermodynamics class that new turbine/steam power plants can get only about 70% efficiency. If I'm not mistaken, the efficiency of the piddling powerplant in your car is nearer 20%. Friction in the engine, nonrecoverable heat from the combustion (biggie), friction in the transmission and tires, etc. You're also completely ignoring the benefits of regenerative braking in electric vehicles/hybrids.
For that matter, where'd you get the 40-50% efficient power grid statistic? I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm curious.
every last fender-bender on the Santa Monica Freeway would result in a Haz-Mat team cleaning up the road
Very good point. If i remember correctly, Ford engineers toyed with using Sodium batteries for their EV-1. Those babies have to be hot enough for the sodium to melt.
What will your electric bill look like as the demand for electricity outstrips supply?
The "Oh no, more electrical bills!" argument is crap. New power plants would get built, and while they would probably burn fuel, they would incorporate more effective smokestack scrubbers than your catalytic converter on your car does.
All things told, I'm just going to ride my bike - everyone else can do what they want.
Wah!
I remember Ballard's first bus had a fuel cell that took up half the space inside... The next one had it stored in the roof, if I'm not mistaken. It looks like the Mark IV might actually be able to fit into a minivan or something. Good for them.
BUT - Much as the word "Hydrogen" and "Clean energy" gets thrown about, they're still going to burn gasoline or other fossil fuels. The SOx sulfides and NOx nitrides (sp?) will be cut down, meaning less smog, but we're still going to be burning fuel that's irreplaceable and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at a ridiculous rate. However, as the story suggests, we could be burning different fuels besides gasoline.
Gas is just too good of a fuel. It's fucking cheap too. Cheaper than bottled water. When we run out, we're going to look back on these days of Ford Explorers/Expeditions/Excursions and point and laugh. Some of us are doing it now.
Wah!
>new turbine/steam power plants can get only about 70% efficiency
A jet engine, which is a kind of turbine would need to put out about 100lb of thrust to maintain freeway cruising speeds in the average car.
I never said anything about rocket cars. Leave those to the hobbyists on the Salt Flats. Turbine/steam power plants achieve high efficiency by running a huge turbine on natural gas, then using the resulting (waste) heat to boil water into steam for more turbine action. Waste heat from that operation is often piped to manufacturing plants next door. This allows for great efficiency of power generation.
Gas turbine cars have (apparently) proven to be very efficient, using a small turbine running at 13,000 RPM to generate electricity for electric motors, not for thrust. They're rather dangerous though. A string of 20 buzzsaws aimed at your shins...
As for where my statistics come from
Links, man, links! You'd be much more convincing if you didn't write a novelette and instead linked to supporting evidence (I should too). Stats I'm not convinced of :
Prove those and your case is made.
And, [fuel cells are] clean. Running on hydrogen, the only emissions would be water vapor. Off gasoline, there'd be a little more
Running off hydrogen, there'd have to be more power plants, mass electrolysis, and a distribution system for a compressed flammable gas. Running off gasoline, there'd be the same amount of CO2 released as in a conventional gas engine now, you can't change the chemistry. What you get is better efficiency and no SOx or NOx gases, which are the source of smog. So yes, it's a good thing, but the hydrogen PR bit is just that. PR.
Wah!
I live a short walk to the BART station, take that to Embarcadero, and transfer to the N MUNI line to get to work... works great for *ME*.
But at the same time, this isn't NYC, London, Boston, or Tokyo. The subway/rail system is nowhere NEAR as extensive as in those larger cities... and it's virturally non-existent in some MAJOR parts of the city (everywhere north of Market Street to be more precise (with the notable (but too infested by tourists to use to get to/from work) exception of the cable cars, and the F-line that runs up the Embarcadero to Fisherman's Wharf).
So public transit works great for *ME*... $35 for the fast pass and I save HEAPS on gas and parking (it's also faster than fighting through traffic). My car sits unused the entire work week, and most weekends. But a LOT of people are SOL so far as transit is concerned (especially those people north of Market). And when none of the (only) five (six if you count the touristy F-line) is near you (and neither is BART, which is parallel w/ MUNI throught most of SF), guess how you have to get around... Yup, they gas up the 'ol car, and DRIVE to their destination.
So it's NOT the solution for everyone.
Oh, and did I mention that this applies only to the CITY itself? If I want to head down into the Valley (there is regretably (and stupidly) no Fry's in the city (yet(hopefully)), or north into Marin, or east to Mt Diablo, Tahoe, Fresno, or Reno... guess how *I* have to do it... internal combustion engine all the way.
I drive a Subaru. Not exactly a gas-sipper like a Honda, but it's no SUV (well, it's marketed as such, but is technically classified as a "small station wagon" by the EPA and (more importantly) my insurance company). Perhaps by the time it wears out to the point of being undrivable, the hybrid/alternative fuel/etc. techs will be more developed. But as it is... the vehicles are not USEFUL to me. I like to go camping, hiking, and mountain biking. All my geat fits in, or on an external rack of, my Subaru... and I get pretty good mileage when I remember to lighten the lead foot...
... but I've DRIVEN a Honda Insight before. As it is right NOW... hybrids don't offer the utility of an ICE powered car... Go ahead, TRY to get a weekends worth of camping, hikeing, and bikeing gear into an insight... I DOUBLE DARE you! Oops... having some difficulty? Now try to get a second person in there as well. See what I mean?
Oh, and when I moved here to SF, I rented a U-Haul trailer and towed all of my stuff myself. I'd like to see an Insight make it to SF from Florida with that kind of load.
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
A big one is power-to-weight ratio. Otto cycle engines have just about everything beat on that at the moment, and diesel cycle engines are a close second.
Workable alternatives are:
- Steam
- Electric transmission, flywheel peaking, just about any efficient engine at about 49 horse.
The last time steam was tried was when Howard Hughes tried it. By his figures he needed to get the total manufacturing cost of the engine plus flash boiler down to $150 to make it a practical replacement for the otto cycle. He got the engine part down to $150 but not to $75.
Electric transmission/flywheel peaking is not simple. But the hard parts are the flywheels and the electronics. People are again working on the flywheels, and silicon just keeps on improving. We might see 'em some time. (Of course I've been waiting for the version with the lawnmower engine / generator in place of the fuel cells for about 40 years and it isn't here yet.)
A fuel-cell/flywheel-peaked electric car would blow the DOORS off an otto-cycle car, as would may other electric transmission configurations. But nearly everything would have to work all the time. (Exception: The fuel cell/engine could quit, and you could limp it several miles to a fixit shop.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I've already sworn to build my first and only house based entirely upon solar power, possibly with a wind backup. While it is possible to connect a solar home to the grid - and even push out your excess energy in return for monthly payments - dependency is something I'm determined to avoid.
However, solar is not only vastly expensive - the typical home can run you as much as $20,000 at building time, enough to pay for about 80 years of coal power - it is also unreliable. A solar panel captures 28% of sunlight's energy at theoretical maximum. In reality, your home's position on the globe and the variability of weather mean that you will probably need a backup system of some kind, such as wind.
Try fitting a system that requires vast, immobile panels onto a car. The Sunrayce Competition promotes the idea of solar powered vehicles, but so far the machines lag behind in reliability and power - and even are deficient in such exotic concepts as "passenger seats".
Solar power is the way to go. It's free, it's unlimited from a practical standpoint, and it's clean. But we aren't there yet.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Other than people trying to drink the fuel.
First of all, fuel made from hemp wouldn't have any noticable amount of THC, so it wouldn't be worth drinking. Also, depending on the process used to make it, it would be non-toxic. So it would be much better for drinking than regular gasoline. But there wouldn't be any motivation to do it.
I'm not sure where people get the idea that people are so hard up for THC that they'll grow crappy dope in hemp fields or drink the gas out of their cars. Better quality stuff isn't that hard to get in the first place.
Also, it's not that harmful. The true motivation for making it illegal in the first place was to prevent hemp industry. The "drug" issue is just a smokescreen.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
Just a note - hemp grows in about 4-6 months, and can get up to 15 feet tall. A tree doesn't have this kind of growth for a couple of decades, and oil takes thousands of years.
"Renewable" is a relative term.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
This is without even addressing the point that cars contribute to the breakdown of neighborhoods, and that a quarter of a million americans are killed in car accidents a year. F cars. They suck. No sympathy from me. Gas should cost 6 bucks a gallon, given the harm it does.]
Gee thank you, and now I can walk the 15 miles to the nearest bus/metro stop ride 30 miles into the city, then walk/bike (assuming they let me take my bike on the metro/bus) the other 15 miles through the city to work. And repeat at night. That's rather a lot of effort to go through when I could cut my commute time in half, be able to listen to whatever music I wanted to, and have decent climate control (biking 15 miles through the snow or in 100 degree whether is not exactly enjoyable). When public transit becomes as convenient as private transit more people will use it. If I actually lived and worked IN the city I'd use it. But some people don't live in the middle of the city and there is no need for those people to pay more for the privelage of being able to travel.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I keep seeing people talking about methanol or alcohol as a fuel. It won't work!
Let's review:
The concept is that you have a renewable energy source. You effectively are harvesting sunlight.
This only works if the amount of energy you get out of the fuel is greater than the amount of energy it takes to produce the fuel.
In order to distill alcohol to the point where it will burn as a fuel takes more energy than burning the alcohol produces.
Conclusion: alcohol is not a renewable fuel source. Now, if you are locating a nuclear plant next to the distillary to make up the difference, then you can use alcohol as an energy storage medium, just as you can use hydrogen or really big springs. But it isn't an energy source, it is an energy storage system.
The neat thing about gasoline is that you get more energy out of burning it than it takes to produce it. It's just not a renewable source...
www.eFax.com are spammers
The way I see it, we use gasoline for two reasons:
1. It's here. It's there. It's everywhere. I can always get gas for my vehicle.
2. It's the cheapest option.
Sure, hydrogen fuel cells may be more efficient, and one day may be signifigantly cheaper than gasoline, but unless I can get it pretty much wherever I need it, it won't fly.
So, taking all things into account, a new non-gasoline fuel source has to have two things:
1. Availability; it's got to be everywhere, or else people won't use it. Unless they only travel on certain routes, where they know they can get the appropriate fill-up.
2. It must be cheaper then any other alternatives(including gasoline), and you've got to CONVINCE them it's cheaper. Show people that if they don't switch, they're throwing money away. The oil compaines have this part locked dead-on for a while to come; they'll just say "Hey, you can get a gas-powered car for about $14,000, brand new, but what'll this new-fangled thing set you back?"
My 0.05 cents
(inflation, plus I live in Canada)
Dave
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
"Plus the modern gas engine is very efficient,"
Bullshit. The modern gas engine is 40% efficient. This is light years ahead of the 15% efficient cars of the 1950s, but far worse than the hybrid cars which use batteries and a small gasoline enginer for eletricity generation which are 90% efficient.
You might was well just throw every second dollar you pay for gasoline right onto a fire, because all that energy is lost as heat in today's current engines. The hybrids don't have this problem as much because the eletric motors that move the wheels don't produce nearly as much waste heat as 4 cylinders.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Along came the automobile. Naptha (gasoline) turned out to be a fairly good match for the fuel-air mixing technologies of the day. So all kinds of cars got designed to use gasoline, as opposed to kerosene or alcohols (which required growing and harvesting a crop, then fermenting it). This led to a distribution network for gasoline.
Fast-forward to 2000. Gasoline still has a huge infrastructure, largely because of historical accident. You can buy methane and propane fuel kits for lots of engines (IMPCO, out of Tukwila WA is a biggie in the biz), but going cross-country with such a vehicle is a bit chancy due to spottiness of suppliers (with the obvious impact on buyer demand). Brazil is promoting ethanol (not methanol, IIRC) because it has plenty of acreage suitable for sugar cane and world prices are low (compared to tariff-driven US prices).
Storage is an issue for some of these fuels. Ethanol and methanol aren't difficult, but propane and especially compressed natural gas require pressure cylinders (heavy ones, for CNG). The kind of tanks that just fit into the various nooks in the bottom of a vehicle can't be built for the pressurized fuels. Combine this with the large volume required to store compressed gases, and you start taking away from the passenger compartment or cargo space.
There are some alternative fuels without so many problems. California has a network of stations dispensing M-85 (85% methanol, 15% gasoline). The gasoline fraction of M-85 allows reasonable cold starting, and the energy per unit volume is about 60% or so of gasoline so range is not seriously compromised. On top of this, it's not very difficult to make an engine which can run on M-85 or gasoline interchangeably. This gets around the problem of customer acceptance being killed by inability to find fuel.
Did that answer your question?
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Vapor lock is pretty much a non-problem with modern fuel-injected engines. Most such engines have a fuel rail that's fed by a high-pressure pump, and a pressure regulator which operates by venting fuel into a return line; the return line goes back to the gas tank. If you got a vapor bubble in the injector supply rail, it would last about five seconds before it was flushed out the return line and replaced by cooler fuel from the tank, and the high pressure of the fuel in the injector rail makes it much harder to form vapor bubbles in the first place.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I've gotten several flyers in the mail about the availability of *new* cars which can run on natural gas. They advertise that there are "over 47" locations in the Denver Metro area to purchase natural gas for these cars, and that natural gas prices have stayed steady for the last 5 years or so. But there are still a few problems:
Currently I can't afford to purchase a brand new car, and I've never seen an option to get a car converted in the Denver area.
I recently moved into the mountains, about 20 minutes away from the nearest city. I doubt the little town of 1000 people I live in will pump natural gas.
What if I want to drive my car across country? I've driven to Ohio about once a year since I got married to visit my inlaws. Once I head east through Nebraska/Kansas I doubt I'll find natural gas pumps at the stations along the interstate...
Yes there are alternatives, but in many areas, there just isn't the infrastructure to support converting your primary vehicle to an alternative like natural gas. The hybrid electrics are better for this, but again you still have to put out the cash for a new car.
I do ride the busses, bike to work, and I would love to switch to an alternative fuel, but right now there's no way I could do it with the resources I have available.
I've read in places that even the most modern gas engines are only 50% - 60% efficient
Offer strong incentives for companies that can to encourage telecommuting. I commute about an hour one-way to work and back and what do I do? Software development. I could telecommute two or three times a week and carpool the other days... if the company had a plan set up.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
2) Distribution. Gasoline stations are everywhere. Hydrogen/Methane/Methanol stations are... pretty much nowhere. Though you can get propane tanks at most gas stations. Personally I want to power my car with several kilos of plutonium, a'la that space helecopter article that was on here a day or two ago.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The majority of SUV's I see are driven by a lady, with no passengers, on her way to work or wherever between the city and suburbs of Indianapolis. People love SUV's because of the commanding view of traffic while driving, plain and simple - Americans have always loved big cars, and demand that their politicians keep gas prices low enough to make them more convenient. Just check out the graph in this story and see how US gas taxes compare with other countries.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The basic idea in the graph I was pointing to was that in comparing the US with the UK, Germany, and Japan, the portion of the consumer gas price that represents tax (about 25-30% in the US) is much smaller than in the other countries (around 60% in Germany & Japan, around 75% in the UK). It's an interesting point to debate, whether this level of tax sufficiently recovers the negative externalities of gasoline use (air/water/noise pollution, roadwork, etc.).
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Hi, To a certain extent this is slightly off-topic... but you American's have NO right to call your petrol prices high. Here in England, we pay more than triple what your paying (even at its peak). If anyone needs alternative types of fuel for cars, it's us British... Roll on cold fusion.. =)
SysWear - Geek T-shirts (UK/Europe)
but allow me to play devil's advocate here: I would really, really miss my car if I didn't have it. the key thing to me (don't laugh) is shopping for groceries -- this turns out to be a real pain in the ass when you have to lug your bags of groceries (and cases of Dew, etc.) back on the bus (or on a trailer off your bike). there are other examples, but let's focus on this one.
hogwash, you interject. people in, say, France don't use a car when they go grocery shopping; neither did we, a hundred years ago. ah, but here's the rub: people in france don't use Safeway. they buy their bread and cheese in the morning, meat for that day's meal, a nice big bottle of wine (yay, stereotypes!) ... you get the idea. Point is, people in a lot of other countries go shopping with a regularity that boggles the American mind: the idea of going to the grocery store once every 3 or 4 weeks (as I am fond of doing) is a peculiarly American one. Condemn it if you like, but the point remains: to get people to get rid of their cars, you wouldn't just have to convince them to take a bike to work; you also have to convince them to change, in a thousand little subtle ways, the way they conduct other aspects of their lives. My picayune example is a grocery store, but you could find plenty of others.
It's also worth mentioning that some solutions to the above-mentioned problems (again using our example: in a lot of cities, companies exist which will do your grocery shopping for you! for a nominal fee, of course) are precluded in certain segments of the population, delineated by lines of both geography and socio-economics. No one in Amherstdale, West Virginia is likely to open a grocery-delivery service anytime soon. And if they did, it would take a long, long time to convince people they could afford it (even given the money they're saving by not using their cars). No bus lines in Amherstdale, either, I'm afraid, which brings us to the other big issue : the scale of the United States today is vastly different from that of most other countries (and from the scale of our own country of 100-plus years ago). People in the US are spread out, have family all over the place, like to go to the beach on weekends; if they live in a few major metropolitan places, you can get them on a train or something, but that's simply not an option in large chunks of the country, and (IMHO) never will be. Decry the large-scale-loving USA populace if you want, but again the fact remains: you'd have to change another facet of people's lives to get them to give up their cars.
Having said all this, of course, I'll still push for people to give up their cars for all but occasional use. But I'd wager the internal combustion engine has a long and happy future ahead of it in the US. ;-)
Even though gasoline prices were very high recently, a gallon of gasoline in the US is still cheap in comparison to the amount of energy it contains. It costs less for a gallon of gas than it does for a gallon of Coca-Cola (sugar water, coloring, some CO2, and gobs of marketing).
Not that I think the oil companies are saints. They gouged at the pump at every hint of a change in oil production, even if the wholesale price won't affect the channel for days or weeks. Their recent BS about dropping prices before the government started noticing was deception at best and an outright lie at worst. It's like the price of memory - a rumor in Taiwan and the prices fluctuate.
Solar and wind are exactly the things to use, and here's why:
While the efficiency of power conversion may be low, remember that what you are converting is free.
While solar and wind can't generate intense power or power on demand, "storing" them in the form of hydrogen allows for intense and demanding applications.
Nothing in solar or wind requires large-scale generation to be efficient, thus allowing production close to where you need it -- on your roof, for instance. This contributes to system-wide efficiency, and allows generation capacity to grow and shrink with demand.
Some success scenarios:
A poor country with no electrical infrastructure and few mineral resources but lots of shoreline deploys photoelectric cells on booms around an offshore electrolysis station. Hydrogen is transported out via a pipeline or tanker to the major cities, where residents can refuel their cars and home cells. Voila! an electrified, gasified country that doesn't have to build an electric grid or import oil.
A ranching town in the Australian Outback builds a series of hydrogen-producing wind turbines on a windy ridge. The citizens have car and home fuel cells to make use of it, and now the government doesn't have to run the electric grid or oil pipelines out there, and people can move to the town without huge startup costs.
A rural American city far from its power source can convince the local manufacturer, already attracted by cheap land and labor, to build their next plant here as well, as the city kicks in for its own hydrogen-provided electrical capacity. Maybe the state helps out, seeing as how it brings jobs AND relieves the pressure on the capital city's growing electrical needs.
You see, the Hydrogen Economy concept has more benefits than saving the planet (like open source has more benefits than users' rights). It is also about independence, flexibility, and global availability. Everywhere that people live, there's sun, wind, and water. That's all the fuel that's needed.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
That's where the Hydrogen Economy concept comes in: you use efficient, or even (gasp!) clean electric generation to separate hydrogen from water, then you distribute it through pipelines to where it can power fuel cells in homes and cars, creating water as a byproduct.
Of course there are inefficencies involved, but renewable energy generation costs no fuel, and hydrogen fuel is a more efficient and flexible means of power transmission than the grid.
Of course, what's holding it up is technology, infrastructure, and price:
Cheap fuel cells aren't efficient enough yet, and efficient fuel cells are made with platinum, which is so scarce there's not enough of it to power the cars in just the U.S., let alone the world.
A hydrogen distribution infrastructure would need to be set up, and the technology for making such a system safe is still being worked out.
And finally, generation by renewables is just too expensive compared to cheap oil. But the squeeze keeps getting tighter as oil prices go up and renewable tech gets cheaper and more efficient.
The first signs of this dam breaking has been serving the market in places that can't access an electric grid, and the infrastructure built for that market will bring the price for the rest of us down. Fortunately, this infrastructure does not rely on massive, central power plants, and thus can be more easily adopted.
Another X factor is that electrical generation capacity in the U.S. is becoming inadequate, and NIMBY attitudes are keeping conventional capacity from being easily built (especially nuclear).
So, as usual, it's the market holding things up, and it will be the market that will finally allow the breakthrough.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Honda has stated that it intends to convert most of it's cars to hybrid in this decade. Which is a good thing, kinda...
See, even if the car is electric then you still have to take into account that, even with Wind, Water, and Nuke based power the majority of our power is from coal, oil, and other fosil based fuels. The only benifit to electric is there is a single point of emmision. And that point can be controlled and scrubbed.
Getting electricity from the power plant to your home isn't an easy task. It's not really efficient. Much of the energy is lost along the way.
As for alcohol based cars....you can make your own ethanol and use it to power your car...many engines will run without modification (tho not well...much better to use a gas/alcohol mix).
Here in Brazil alcohol based cars have been in use for almost 3 decades AFAIK. There are pros and cons to using it (more pros than cons in my view).
The alcohol used here is a mix of about 20% gas and the rest if ethanol, made from sugar cane. Gas-only cars shoundn't use this because it shortens the engine's parts life... and this mix is more corrosive than plain gasoline.
As for price, the liter costs about 60 to 70% the price of a liter of gas, and it could be even less, if the process used to ditill the alcohol was optimized for the sugar cane we use (AFAIK, they use a method from Europe, where they get alcohol from another source).
As for some pros and cons, alcohol does pollute less than gas, and the cars generally have a slightly better performance. But, however, they tend to have a shorter life. And, before we had electronic injections, starting up an alcohol car in cold weather was an exercise for anyone's patience...
--
Marcelo Vanzin
Marcelo Vanzin
I don't see what people's problem is. People keep using outdated tech, just because whole segments of the economy are based on older, less efficient technology.
Nevermind that fuel cells and alternatives cost a fortune these days (in *theory* they shouldn't, but they *do* because it's young tech).
Nevermind that not everyone is willing to scrap hige investments in existing tech.
Nevermind that new technology almost always goes through a phase of unreliability, inefficiency, and debugging.
Nevermind all that -- people should drop everything and change from the tested, reliable, (relatively) cheap, and ubiquitous to the new, experimental, unproven, expensive stuff... because it's better!
This seems like a pretty naive topic, no?
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
1. Gasoline is a more efficient fuel than alchohol. It takes almost twice as much alchohol to go the same distance as with gasoline, which is why auto makers went with gas versus alchohol when cars first came out. 2. Cold morning starts are harder, due to the compression ratio of alchohol burning cars.
The reason gas prices are so high is because people are buying gas-guzzling SUV's and driving up the demand for gasoline to insane levels, while OPEC has not increased production to match.
The reason is because OPEC has decreased production early this year. Why? Because the Clinton administration asked them to. Why? So that certain oil-producing countries could make more money to pay off their debts. Russia and Iran in particular. In other words, this "risky idea" (to borrow Algore's favorite word) was a plan to get the American people get to pay off bad foreign debts.
Also, new EPA regulations went into force in the north-central United States, increasing the price because of new additives. At the same time, a pipeline which had been repaired wasn't allowed to run at full capacity for a few months because of EPA regulations. Most of the gasoline had to be trucked in, adding to the cost.
And now Clinton and Gore are blaming the American oil companies for the problem that they themselves created.
The interesting thing is that usually you can't get them all to keep production down for long, because one of them will get greedy and start producing more while the price is high. This time they seem to be staying in line better than ever before.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Gas is the standard. Like Windows. Oh... you drive a Macintosh... we don't have any Mac mechanics.
Of course there is also the issue of building out infrastructure for other fuels. If the fuel is a liquid comparable in storage requirements to gasoline, distribution is less a problem than retrofitting all those engines.
If you want to place bets on something that might compete with gasoline, I'd say ethanol or methanol, because they can be pumped like gasoline and the engine modifications are not too severe. Obviously what's needed is cross platform automobiles that can run on more than one kind of OS... err, um fuel. Java cars?
Of course, the Java car isn't quite as fast as the regular car, and sometimes you have to type SET CLASSPATH=/carburator/intake_valve/cylinder to make it start.
Propane might be a worthy competitor too. I've been thinking it would be really cool to drive up to the propane station and swap tanks. That infrastructure is already in place throughout much of the country. The only real motive we need is for the licensing agreement, er.. um... the price on the gasoline to become a real nuisance.
Then we will start seeing all kinds of similar but slightly different fuels competing in the market place. Linux cars.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
At this stage of the game, saying that electric or fuel cell based vehicles are a 'solution' is simply a fallacy. Electric vehicles AREN'T significantly more efficient in terms of energy usage. With signficant energy loss in electricity production, storage and use, you don't end up with any higher thermal efficiency than a simple gas engine. Not to mention the problem of transmission of that power. Up to 75% of the electricity generated by power stations can be lost over long distance high tension transmission lines. Right now, the most flexible part of our electricity supply happens to be fossil fuel powered production facilities. Any increase in demand for electricity will be supplied by coal plants and gas turbines. We certainly can't use much more hydro, since we've dammed everything up that we can in N.A. Nuclear power has it's own problems. Solar power just isn't economically viable at this point. So, while electric and fuel cell based cars are fantastic at reducing localized pollution problems (L.A. anyone?) they don't 'solve' the problem by any stretch of the imagination. Mass transit, on the other hand, is FANTASTIC. We've just got to wrap our heads around the fact that using a car to commute is ridiculous. There are many applications and situations where cars make more sense than buses, subways and trains, but the BULK of car usage is at 9am and 5pm, in gridlock and traffic jams on the major arteries in our cities. What's the point of that when public transit does the job much better? Greg
Gasohol damages the internals of older cars. Just ask my family who had to replace a good number of hoses in our old station wagon after the energy crisis. Gas stations wishing to sell gasohol would have to do one of 2 things.
1) Stop selling gasoline, clean out their tanks, and fill them with gasohol
2) Increase facilities to sell gasohol.
And of course, the 3rd option that makes neither the gas people or the gasohol people happy.
3) Start selling a mix of the 2.
You can make your own gasohol, but that doesn't help much on a road trip unless you want to forget your luggage and carry what in most states would probably be considered a bomb with you.
It's a nice idea, but the cost of switching to gasohol doesn't make sense, and would only lose companies money. If you have a nice little moped or a car that you only take around your home town with you, yeah, I could see it, but I'm not switching from gasoline for my truck any time soon.
Eh...
I have a minivan, precisely because it's the logical family vehicle. It wraps the whole family and our stuff, and takes us on vacations. For normal life, it wraps the wife and kids, and perhaps some friends and kids, and transports them safely. It holds wood, mulch, footlockers, and other occasional stuffl. The mileage could be better, but an SUV would be a lot worse.
Sure, the image stinks. But it makes too much sense in my situation to ignore.
For my commute, I'm presently driving (alone, I guiltily admit) in a beater. But at least my gas mileage is in the 30+ mpg range.
The car is due for replacement. Since it's a commute vehicle and gets less than 10k miles/year,
I just can't justify a new car as a replacement, let alone a pricey hybrid. It'd rust out (New England salted winter roads) before anything close to wearing out.
I just wish there was already a market in used electric cars.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Did anyone else see the TV spot about the used cooking oil powered van?
That is a very nice alternative fuel if I've ever heard of one...
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
People here seems to think that by putting stuff other than gas into their cars can (1) save the environment (2) save costs (3) look cool.
But this is all a myth, just something to make us feel good. The fact is that _cars burn fuel_ to move whatever the fuel is.
Electricity? Sure plug in your batteries into your house jack to charge em up! No Gas? WRONG! How the hell do the electricity gets to your jack anyway? It's coal, burnt at your nearest power station. That's more damaging to the enviro then gas.
Natural gas? That's still fuel. And it costs money and energy to either (a) compress them (b) process them. (I know, I work in a gas compression facility before.) That's fuel burned, kiddo. The savings to the environment is minimal.
(Now methanol is cool : it's made of sugarcane which is eminently renewable.)
The future is not about "what fuel you burn". It's about "how efficient is your engine". Natural gas has higher Hydrogen to Carbon ratio then gasoline, so they are more efficient. So is methanol. But NOT ELECTRICITY (unless it is solar powered. but solar powered cars are not going to be powerful enough since nature puts a limit on the efficiencies of GaAs solar cells at 25%.)
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Honda's Insight's New 2001 Electrical engine :)
http://es.epa.gov/new/contacts/newsltrs/prevent/ fall93.html#battery
Seriously, this technology has been out there for a while. I think the time to market and climactic differences have so far prevented these alternative fuel technologies from becoming public. Plus, the performance factors of these AFV's do not come close (yet) to matching the output of traditional gasoline.
It is nice to see that Honda and Daimler-Chrysler are taking the challenge. I'd buy some stock in Ballard if I could :)
Has anyone asked why we use cars? I think it's just an assumption that we need cars. I think a nuclear(electric) powered rail transit system for mass commuting accross country, and also for large items would work as it did in the past(well steam trains anyways)...
and then instead of commuting to work we could live near enough to our workplaces to either ride the metro, the bus, a bike, or walk.
We didn't have cars 200 years ago, and people survived, I think we could probably figure out a way to do it again!
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
Correct, but misleading. Let's look at some facts:
Fact: All power other than nuclear that we use is solar power.
The sun grows plants which were kind enough to get crushed into oil for us. The sun evaporates water, allowing it to move up hill and provide us with hydro. sun = heat = atmospheric convection = windmill. biomass, see oil minus 1 billion years.
Fact: Transitions of state and transport invariably lead to losses in efficiency.
Godd ol' Isaac and his nifty laws. Keep 'em in yer wallet I say! Sun - > plant loses a lot of efficiency. Plant - > oil even more. So, we're not talking about "efficiency" when we talk about oil burning. We're talking about "convenience".
"Obvious" conclusion: We all burn the sun in our cars (unless you have a nuclear car. There's a thought "Car crash, millions die of cancer") We choose how we do that based on convenience not efficiency. Oil, ultimately, is the least efficient way, because even if we start burying leaves right now we'll never be able to generate more in time...
oh yeah, my electric company offers wind power. $15 more a month, which isn't bad. I've got that. Now all I have to do is pick up a voltsrabbit electric conversion kit and I'll be all set.
2 1337 4 u!
Here is an example of my point:
In the late 80's, early 90's, the government (signed by George Bush Sr) decided that Freon, being hazardous to the enviroment, was going to be federally controlled to the extent that a) the auto makers had to come up with an alternate refrigerant for cars and b) current Freon supplies would be tightly controlled and no longer for sale for the general public to install themselves.
The result?
Freon which cost 3.00 at any auto supply shop was removed from the shelves.
Freon had to be installed by a licenced technician.
The cost of a recharge at an auto shop went from 7.50 where I live, to 35.00 in one day.
Technicians were still free to buy it and a healthy black market ensued for the product.
Cars with the updated refrigerant were not available for some years (the car I bought in 1994 did not come equipped with it).
To have your old car upgraded to a safer unit, was the cost of a new unit 600.00 to 1000.00.
It is 100 degrees on summer days where I live. I went a whole summer being unable to afford 35.00 to fix my then truck. Nor could I ever afford a new unit.
Fortunately, I ended up in different circumstances. But what of all the people who were forced to suffer due to this shortsighted policy?
It works the same way. You can spit out all the rhetoric about "greedy companies" and conspiracy theories about bribes and whatnot, but the fact remains: All too often, the best laid plans of enviromentalists and politicians affects those with the smallest voices.
And telling someone on minimum wage who files a 1040EZ form, "Look, we will give you a tax credit for the Bluebook value of your 78 Ford pickup!" is like handing a drowning man a donut.
All I am saying is for the ivory tower enviromentalists to realize that we are talking about people down here who have to work, feed their children and live. Figure out an alternative that respects these people who have no voice in this society.
Aviation combustion engines are air cooled. As such
at high power output, on takeoff, they need help cooling
their engines. Leaded fuel is somewhat better for this
as well as being significantly less volatile (emergency landings).
Also all these engines require 100+ octane fuel which
I believe is much cheaper when leaded. Using lower
octane fuel cannot take place as all of them have
2200-2700rpm redline (props are direct drive) thus
knocking would destroy these.
*Warning* Shameless plug about to follow: From "The Electric Vehicle Unplugged", Technology Review:
The energy density of lead-acid batteries-the kind used in conventional cars for startup and auxiliary power-is about 35 watt-hours per kilogram, less than one-three-hundredth that of gasoline, which is about 12,000 watt-hours per kilogram. As a rule of thumb, 1 gallon of gasoline, weighing about 8 pounds, has the same energy content as a ton of lead-acid batteries.
IOW, gasoline has a rather incredible energy density, particularly when you consider the fact that it can be (relatively) safely handled by the public. In fact, you have to work pretty hard to make it explode.
As has been cited elsewhere, the infrastructure today is the thing that governs the fuel that we use. Cost of delivery is a real fraction of that cost, and setting up another infrastructure to handle some new fuel is a real bear. That's why there's so much work going into figuring out how to convert liquid fuels (with their high energy density) into something that a fuel cell, which doesn't incur the thermodynamic losses inherent in combustion, can use.
Otherwise, the only really credible mechanism for increasing fuel efficiency using an "alternative" fuel is the diesel engine - stratified charge diesels can achieve +45% efficiencies, while the Otto cycle pretty much tops out in the high 30s.
Methane/propane are certainly cleaner burning, but the tanks impose huge space constraints on vehicle design and the distribution and refueling issues are huge. A big gasoline spill is an environmental mess; an LNG spill in an area with a storm drain system is an incredibly effective way to think about blowing up a city!
Excuse me?
1. How does planting crops attribute to erosion? Since hemp has a long tap root, it does exactly the opposite.
2. soil nutrient depletion - Because of this long tap root, nutrients are brought to the surface of the soil. For this exact reason is why hemp has been known throughout history as a good rotational crop. Thomas Jefferson supported hemp for this very reason (comparing it to tobacco, which does depelete the soil).
3. fertilizers/pesticides - hemp is virtually immune to pests, requiring no pesticide. Also, 14-18 tall crops are easily acheived without fertilizer.
4. YOU CANNOT GROW CANNABIS IN HEMP FIELDS - The reason why is easily explained when you understand how marijuana is produced. To make "pot" you grow only female plants. Depriving them of male pollen is what creates the "bud" that people smoke. If you planted your marijuana plants in a hemp field you would end up with pollenized plants and have wasted your time.
Rudolf Deisel used hemp hurds as the base for his biomass component of deisel (which was replaced by petroleum after hemp was made illegal). The hurds are cellulose material that resides between the fibers and is very similar to petroleum cells because of their thick walls.
Vegetable oils (at least in the case of hemp) comes from the seed, a completely different component of the plant. The oil has an extreemly high viscosity rate, so it's good for lubrication, but not for fuel.
For hemp fuel to be made the hurds are put through pyrolysis (applying heat in the absence of oxygen). This creates a liquid, solid, and gas; all of which can be used as fuels (replacing coal, gasoline, and natural gas). When the liquid is distilled with methanol, you end up with a clean burning fuel that gives your car the same explosive power as an alcohol fuel racer. I haven't known too many alcohol fueled cars "gum up".
Uhh... The only way to get that kind of energy out of gasoline/petroleum is if someone has managed to figure out a way to convert mass into energy.
So, unless Mr. Fusion has been pulled off the back of Doc Brown's DeLorean and stuck into a car, I think you've got a decimal point in the wrong place.
Mechanical and chemical engineering is a far more mature science than electrical engineering. All improvements in fields involving these two disciplines tend to occur at an incremental pace, not at the pace we've become used to in the computer field.
The Mobil Economy Run typically has 100MPG turnouts now, with a few spiking up as high as 110MPG.
To demonstrate the pace of change,a Slant-6 powered Plymouth Valiant won the 1964 Mobil Economy Run. It managed a whopping 38 MPG. Just 12 years later, Chrysler brought out a Plymouth Duster (Valiant derivative) which included some aluminum body panels and was capable of the same mileage. The '76 Plymouth Feather Duster is a rare and highly sought-after car today.
If someone were to build disposable cars, designed to last 3-4 years, using this ultra-efficient technology, you could throw away a good percentage of the gas-guzzlers. Less gasoline requied = more gasoline to go round.Cars with shorter lifespans = more manufacturing of cars. More manufacturing of cars = more steel mills, more transportation, more tooling required for the factories. In short, you're replacing a problem seen at the tailpipe with a far bigger problem seen at the factory smokestack.
The one good thing about SUVs is that the real ones are built to last. They're full-frame, rear-wheel-drive. Sure, they're heavy gas-hogs, but most people don't drive more than about 12,000 miles a year. An SUV is built like a Chevrolet Caprice Classic or a Ford LTD Crown Victoria - either one is a car that has no problem surviving 150,000 miles in police duty before being sold for a second life as a taxicab.
Manufacturing the average car uses fuel and energy equivalent to driving that same car over over 180,000 miles. (Note that this isn't expressed in expensive terms like $/gallon; generally electric prices for steel mills are somewhere in the range of $30/megawatt.) This doesn't include toxic waste from both manufacturing and disposing of the plastic products that are used extensively in a modern car to reduce the weight (and therefore increase gas mileage).
Since the average car currently lasts 8-10 years, and since the average number of miles travelled is 12,000 per year, that means the investment to make the car is 180,000 miles, yet the useful life of the car is only 120,000 miles.
That's a net loss. And replacing the car every few years for only a very incremental upgrade in gas mileage is just crazy.
That's not to say that a disposeable car couldn't be made quite inexpensively. But the most expensive part of a car is the labor required to build it to the exacting tolerances to which it's built. If you reduce those tolerances to reduce the cost of the car, you're also reducing the efficiency of the car. Emissions and gas mileage are a direct factor of how precisely the valves close and how well the pistons fit into the cylinders.
If you want a car that is disposeable, look at the way most of today's cars are built. They're pretty damned near disposeable. Pickup trucks, full-frame rear-wheel drive cars, and heavy early unibodies last a long time. But lightweight unibody cars - like most of the vehicles on the road - suffer metal fatigue and corrosion problems early on. (A Dodge Aries/Plymouth Reliant is a classic example. Look at the side of the roof pillar, just near the the top of the back doors, next time you see one in a parking lot. A lot of them have fatigue cracks there.)
This is, of course, to say nothing of the fact that in a front wheel drive car, even a fairly small accident can easily trash the drivetrain as well as the suspension, and therefore write off the car. Since most cars experience two accidents during their lifetimes, and the average lifespan of a car is 8-10 years, that averages an accident every 4 or 5 years. The more fragile the car, and the more stuff is located up front, the more likely the car will be written off.
As far as I'm concerned, the best example of a disposeable car these days is a Honda Civic. The body panels are very thin to be light, which means that they dent very easily, and will quickly rust out if the paint and galvanizing layer is damaged. (Good thing Honda makes great paint.) The engine and transmission are right up front, since it's a front wheel drive car. As with all front wheel drive cars, it takes a lot of work to change a bad part, since there's a lot of stuff you have to move out of the way first. (Look at where the alternator is in a Civic!) Parts are expensive, making repairs impractical. And the hard-working little four-cylinder engines produce a lot of power for their size, sure, but that means more load on the piston rings and the tops of the combustion chambers. The more load on the piston rings and the tops of the combustion chambers, the sooner you will need to do a re-bore/re-ring job.
It's truly a car that is meant to be driven 120,000 miles (or more, if you're *very* good with maintenance) and then scrapped.
Unfortunately, the Japanese influence on Detroit, as well as the ever-higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy laws, have reduced the numbers of cars that are built like the Caprice Classics of yesteryear.
Your only hope for a tough-as-nails, built-to-last vehicle these days is a full-frame, American-made SUV, as odious as it may sound.
Note that a Toyota RAV-4 or a Honda CR-V or a Suzuki Sidekick is a lightweight unibody that masquerades as a truck. You have to buy the real thing to get the real thing:
Jeep Grand Cherokee/Dodge Dakota/Dodge Durango
Jeep TJ/Wrangler
Any pickup truck.
Chevy Blazer/GMC Jimmy/Yukon/Suburban
Ford Expedition/Explorer/Lincoln Navigator
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Uhhh... I think you're probably mistaken.
Last time I was under a Cherokee, it was a unibody. Pretty damned tough, but still a monoque vehicle.
But the Grand Cherokee shares a frame with the Durango, which is just a modified version of the Dakota frame.
I assure you, every Grand Cherokee I've ever worked on has been full frame. Box section, at that, with great body-to-frame isolating dampers and everything.
So, despite the silly carpets and leather seats, you may rest assured that a Grand Cherokee is *very* much a truck.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Wow. I can't wait to drive that. Sounds very comfortable, safe and practical.
But, sadly, those of us with statures less diminutive than the 5'0" indicated will have to continue to drive more conventional (and realistic) vehicles.
I, for one, at 6'4", shall continue to drive my 1976 Dodge Ram. It's 21' long, has a 400CID V8 engine, weighs about 4,500lbs and has manual steering. One cylinder on my engine could aspirate that entire weed wacker engine. The massive weight and lack of power steering give the vehicle other benefits that reduce the total cost of ownership (despite the fact that it only gets 7MPG). For one thing, I didn't need to keep my gym membership, since parallel parking it provides the best upper-body workout for which one could hope.
And, of course, the Ram provides a form of collision insurance just not sold by State Farm. It's the "if I'm gonna get killed in a car accident, I'm damned well taking you with me" policy. That would especially include carbon-fiber vehicles running on ten-speed tires. Sure, carbon fiber is great, but so is Michigan's finest steel: I could back over you in a parking lot and never even know it. 235/75R-15 Mud and Snow radials, while not huge, are big enough that an entire car such as you've described could become caught between my treads as easily as a piece of gravel.
With apologies to the very passe Lorne Michaels, the weed-wacker powered carbon fiber "I'm gonna lie down as I drive" car is another Not Ready for Prime Time Player.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Most cars are not that well maintained, and therefore will not last that long. Especially few people maintain the engine and neglect the body (and vice versa). Usually, if the body is neglected, the engine is, too.
Further, in order to reduce fuel consumption and increase power per cubic inch, many Japanese engines have very small piston to bore clearances, requiring very narrow piston rings. Now, this sounds like a good thing on paper, and in many respects, it's a great thing. It's like communism - it seems like a good idea until you try it. In practice, speaking as one who has rebuilt several Japanese car engines, it sucks.
The problem is that you don't want to put the piston ring grooves too deep into the piston skirts. If you do, that increases the weight of the piston, and therefore more energy is wasted during the reciprocation of the bottom end of the engine.
So, because the piston rings are narrow, as they wear, their cross-section is reduced, and so is the spring tension that forces their faces against the insides of the bore. Since these also tend to be high-revving engines that place an enormous load on their piston rings both thermally (from friction with the bore) and caused by inertia, the erosion of the rings is very much a design concern. As that happens, more blowby gets into the crankcase, and more oil gets up into the combustion chamber. Coked-up oil (which is oil that is not changed as frequently as it should be, and virtually everyone is guilty of that occasionally) will get into the tight bore to piston clearance and often creates sludge in the oil control rings, preventing them from working properly. Oil then leaks into the combustion chambers.
One of the most famous engines for this is the Mitsubishi 3.0L V6, sold primarily in Dodge Caravans and Plymouth Voyageurs. (It was the late '80s. People thought Japanese cars were better, but wanted to be patriotic and drive a domestic, so having a Japanese engine in an American car made them feel good.) Next time you see an older Caravan or Voyageur spouting blue smoke, take a look for the little emblem on the fender: 3.0L V6. Note that very few of the Caravans/Voyageurs with American-made 2.2L or 2.5L engines do this.
If the bore to piston clearance was a little more (like it is in domestic motors), the rings could have a lot more cross-sectional area, and be able to maintain their spring tension against the inside of the cylinder bores a lot better.
My '88 CRX Si has 196000 miles, uses no oil, gets 38mpg, and is still as fast as it was when it was new.Sure! And my 1976 Dodge Ram with a 400CID V8 has better than 227,000 miles on it, and still runs like it's new. My 1974 Plymouth Valiant Brougham has 297,000 miles on its trusty old Slant-6. They're all anecdotal, and with more mileage than most of their peers had when they hit the great metal munchers at the steel mills. The fact remains that generally a domestic engine will be more durable in the long run, and more forgiving of maintenance and mechanical failure than will be a Japanese motor.
God forbid you should be lax and not change your Honda's timing belt on time. It's an interference motor, meaning that the valves and the pistons don't have sufficient clearance for the valves to be open when the pistons reach top dead center. Of course, in a perfect world, that would never happen. In a perfect world, everyone changes their timing belts before they snap. We don't live in a perfect world, and our cars shouldn't require unrealistic maintenance to avoid a catastrophic failure. A timing belt snap in a Japanese car typically grenades the motor, often not just bending valves and breaking pistons, but also cracking heads and scoring blocks. While an intereference motor is great for performance and gas mileage, it's pretty nasty when they go bad. In a domestic car, when you pop the timing belt, usually the engine simply stops running. You'd coast to the shoulder, wait for the tow truck, and have a new timing belt fitted. When an interference motor grenades itself at highway speeds, normally the engine doesn't just stop producing power, it seizes because the debris blocks the movement of the pistons. If you're in a FWD stickshift vehicle, the front wheels will lock up, and you'll lose steering control until you have the presence of mind to hit the clutch or put the car into neutral.
(but yes, you do have to remove the left axle to replace the alternator )-: )Sure! Now, that's fun, isn't it?
The little boys out there who think a Honda Civic with a big stereo is the ultimate driving machine get to find out all about this.
Most domestic cars, if you overload the alternator, the regulator will crank up the field current to a limit. If you're drawing 100A off the battery and the alternator can only supply 70A to replenish the battery, your battery voltage will drop, and eventually you may be screwed, if you don't watch the gauges.
A Nippondenso alternator (Honda/Toyota/Nissan/Subaru...) will crank the field current up, too. Sadly, though, the tiny and lightweight alternator doesn't cool itself well enough for the field windings to be able to handle the continuous current that the regulator will allow to flow. Not only will the battery voltage gradually drop, but eventually something in the alternator gets too hot (usually field windings, which are actually on the armature). Pop goes the alternator. Cars equipped with stupidly big stereos and lots of bug lights underneath are especially vulnerable to this, since the alternator load is nowhere within design specifications, and the alternator's design doesn't explicitly prevent thermal runaway.
While overloading an alternator is never a good idea, I find it comforting to know that most Bosch, Delco, Motorcraft and Mopar alternators (all domestics and most of the European imports) won't fail in this way: turn off the excessive electrical loads, toss the car on a battery charger, start it up, and everything is usually fine.
My '86 accord I bought a year ago with 220000 miles and now has 242000 miles. Similar story with that one; no oil consumption, 32mpg.More power to you.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Yup. Domestic engines, especially older ones, were overbuilt, and depended less on precise mechanical tolerances to run well.
All these are anecdotal, but I'll tell you the story of a friend of mine. We were in high school then, the long-haired guys with the Motley Crue t-shirts that all the guys from the computer lab avoided (until they discovered that I was, at the time, an avid and good assembly language programmer).
Jay picked up a 1977 Dodge Aspen. It was rotted right out, having been driven in the winter by an uncaring owner. The car cost him $30 and still ran very well. He got it safetied by a garage that didn't really look at it, and put it on the road.
He drove that car for two years, never once changing the oil in the Slant-6. Since it had some oil leaks, it needed topping up occasionally, which he did...
You know how old oil, coolant, transmission fluids and stuff are collected in the high school auto shops? Generally, a bucket under the car. And that bucket gets filled with everything, including cigarette butts and the sawdust that's used to mop up spills.
Jay, wanting to spend money only for gas, used to top up the oil with that. He still managed to put over 50,000 miles on that car in two years, the Slant-6 still coughing to life at the touch of the key. He finally scrapped the car when he got T-boned by a Cavalier on a winter evening.
Again, it's entirely anecdotal; most cars never suffer that kind of abuse, and fewer still would survive it. But now, having rebuilt several Chrysler Slant-6s, I know how Jay's Aspen didn't die. I know why it kept going.
It was built to last.
The Slant-6 is by far my favorite engine, for this exact reason.
As far as the mitsubishi 3.0 V6 goes, I have another friend with a plymouth acclaim that has one of these; yes, it leaks oil from every available orifice.More so isn't the external leaks. The oil control rings coke up if the oil isn't changed frequently, and the engine starts blowing blue clouds when you hit the gas. Either rebuild the motor, or better still, yank it out and replace it with a good 2.2L or 2.5L non-turbo engine. It'll last longer.
Good thing it's a non-intereference engine because he's got over 160000 miles on it and hasn't changed the timing belt.Hmmm... Are you sure it's a non-interference motor? I know for sure that the Mitsu 2.6L engine, optional in K-cars and stuff before the 3.0L V6, is an interference motor. But that was an engine that seldom made it to the 80,000 mile timing belt change - usually, they cracked their heads long before then. There are, last time I looked, four companies that sell mounting kits that let you put a 2.2L or 2.5L Chrysler engine into your car in place of that 2.6L Bitsumishi.
My personal preference (maybe it's an acquired taste) is to drive something smaller and lighter with an engine that likes to rev. I've had fun driving, maintaining (I do all my own work), and tuning my CRX for 12 years.Okay. Tuning, or building?
Power is generally achieved through pulling off the head, porting and polishing it, increasing valve sizes, shaving the deck for increased compression ratio, port matching the intake and header to the head, etc.
Tuning is basic maintenance, not a performance upgrade, which is something that tends to confuse many rice rocket enthusiasts. Changing spark plugs, adjusting timing, adjusting fuel/air ratios, etc. is tuning, not building the engine up for better performance. Generally, building an engine takes the car off the road for a few weeks; most of these little kids who have the "Tuned by" stickers on their cars can't afford a second (or third) car, and therefore don't get any real performance work done.
The other thing is that once you've built the car for performance, real world street driveability is compromised. The manufacturers are interested in building cars for regular use, not drag or oval track racing, after all.
I'm guessing from your email address that your preferences lie elsewhere....Absolutely, and I suspect that you're somewhat more astute and informed than most of the Japanese car enthusiasts that I come across, based solely on the fact that you either know what "BigBlock" is, or that you know what "Mopar" is. Though I will confess that I have seen one Honda products that really did impress me. The thing was a perfectly stock looking 1993 Civic hatchback. The guy had hacked on a huge Garrett turbo that looked like it was off a Buick Grand National. This Civic ran 11.9 on the 1/4 mile, despite the fact that front wheel drive doesn't lend itself to drag racing. That was impressive.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
...people keep buying gasoline cars for the same reason they keep buying WinTel computers: there's a hundred times more places to buy the stuff that goes inside.
Where I live (Illinois) the fuel all uses ethanol, but the gas prices are jacked up because of the stupid USPTO. Down with patents to lower gas prices! </rant>
Check out The Secret History of Lead for a study in corporate greed.
Browser? I barely know her!
A friend of mine recently got a ford pickup (the model number escapes me at the moment) which can run off of gasoline or methanol. The only major problem he had was the availability of methanol. I'm not sure about the fine print, but it seemed like a good way to tackle the availability problem. He can get methanol when it's available, but if it isn't he's not completely screwed.
"Please, how about a little less love and a little more common decency?" - Kurt Vonnegut jr.
One word can sum up why gasoline is king of the automotive power hill: Infrastructure.
Another two can sum up why it'll stay there: market economy.
Gasoline is old. Really old. Yes, it's been reformulated (got rid of the lead, added detergents, etc.) but the general idea of having a liquid hydrocarbon that your horseless carriage runs on is old.
What this means is that there have always (all of my life, anyway - long enough) been oil expeditions looking for a source of oil to make gasoline from, there has always been refineries that can make the gasoline, there have always been distribution systems for gasoline, and there have always been gas stations that retail the gasoline to consumers. The infrastructure is there, and has been refined and adjusted and is working pretty well.
Now, fuel cells are a wonderful idea, but so far they either run on hydrogen, methan(e/anol), or other such light fuels. Do you see these at every 7-11 and Sunoco station? No - you'll find it added to select gasolines (but no more than 10%) in some places. Add to the fact that fuel cells use a LOT of platinum (the ones I'm familliar with) for their catalyst, and the fact that they aren't mass-produced yet, and there you have an expenstive alternative.
Alternative fuels are the same story infrastructure-wise, but without the added complication of developing technology. I could convert my car to ethanol, methanol, propane (LPG), natural gas (CNG)... and get excellent emissions, good drivability... but I'd be a fool to go on long trips without mapping out where each ethanol station is along my route. (Trust me on this - I did the 1997 Propane Vehicle Challenge, and we mapped out EACH and EVERY propane station from Waterloo, Ontario, Canada all the way down to Austin, Texas. Not exactly spur-of-the-moment "road trip" kinda stuff.)
(And before someone says, "But propane has infrastructure!", yes, it does. But very limited. It's big in Canada - mostly for BBQ's - and Texas, but that's about it. Drive around town, and see how many propane centers you see, and how many have the right nozzle for vehicle refuelling. Hint: try your local taxi depot or airport shuttle service. It may be your only bet.)
Meanwhile, gasoline engines are getting better and better. Honda can now get 71 mpg highway and 61 city with the IMA (Integrated Motor Assist) Insight. Many manufacturers have LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle), TLEV (Transitional), ULEV (Ultra-), and even SULEV (Super-Ultra-, or something like that)vehicles in showrooms right now, and more coming. Volvo even has a catalytic radiator coating that eats up smog and hydrocarbons (if memory serves) as you drive along. (Wish I had a link for that one - too bad I'm lazy.)
Add in the Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle (PNGV), intensive efforts by the aluminum industry to get their material into more and more cars (AIV's - Aluminum Intensive Vehicles), and the counter-effors by the steel consortiums to keep their product the mainstay of autobodies by making thinner, stronger, and lighter carbodies to compete with aluminum, plastic, and whatever else people come up with, and you'll eventually get vehicles that are lighter, more fuel-efficient, and barely sip the gas. There already exist cars in Europe that attain 3L/100km, or about 78 mpg.
Gasoline. It's old. It's new. And unless someone wants to dump in trillions of dollars into global infrastructure, it's staying for a while longer.
Mr. Ska
Mr. Ska
Another problem you would have with electric in most forms is that, overall, pollution-wise, it can be just as bad. Unless you're using solar power to recharge, pollution from the electric companies will replace the pollution from cars. There's also the problem that I doubt the world power grid could currently handle the charging of millions of electric cars. The original story has the best point that until the energy source and its infrastructure grow up at about the same time, or a crisis occurs in fossil fuels, we'll be with gas.
While lots of you would like to believe that it's all a big conspiracy by government, auto manufacturers, and big oil, the simple truth is that it isn't. It's an engineering issue - gasoline simply continues to be one of the best all-around compromise solutions for our current situation. While I know that's flame-bait, here's my reasoning (these should be fairly close, but as I should be working right now, I'm trying to hurry - if I screwed up a calculation, please dispute it...):
Typical Energy Densities in kWh/kg
Hydrogen...32.9
Gasoline...14
CNG/LNG...9.8
Ethanol...2.8
Pb Acid Batteries...0.04
NiCd Batteries...0.08
NiMH Batteries...0.12
Li Polymer Batteries...0.23
Hydrogen is better, but it's an issue of producing/manufacturing/distributing it. Electrolysis isn't that efficient, and the energy still has to come from somewhere - free hydrogen just doesn't occur naturally, so it's more of an intermediate stage between some other form of energy and something you can haul around. By the time you factor in the efficiency of electrolysis (the only feasible process for mass hydrogen production that I'm aware of - anybody more knowledgable about this than me?), it's about the same energy density as gasoline, and you've wasted 30% of your input energy. Same to worse with most other alternative chemical fuels.
Solar? Forget it - even if photovoltaics were 100% efficient (which isn't and won't ever be possible), that's still only 1kW/m^2 average in the US. (Practical terrestrial grade cells are currently 15-17% efficient and about $9US/W. By the time you get them encapsulated and strung together, they're about $25-30US/W. Prohibitively expensive, big, and most of all, fragile. Imagine instead of just replacing a panel and doing some painting next time you're in a wreck, replacing a $50,000 array as well, because it has hairline cracks all through it... ouch...)
It's fairly obvious that current batteries are not practical for any long-range vehicle, and especially not one designed for extended (multiple refuel/rechargings per day) as batteries just don't recharge that fast. Piling in enough batteries to give a common sedan adequate range for most Americans out here in the West (the Eastern megalopolis is another issue, with the close proximity of everything). On average, I put on about 1k miles/week, and that's more than any currently-available system other than ICE/gasoline can practically handle.
So, why not build an ultralight car and just reduce the amount fuel it needs for propulsion? Twofold: 1) ultra-light probably means moving away from steel, which significantly raises the cost and 2) ulta-light probably can't take much punishment without being irreparably damaged or injuring the occupants.
While I don't dispute that gasoline is not the final solution, for right now it's the best we've got. Certainly it can be made less-poluting (better engines, better emissions equipment, oxygenated fuels), and I'd be willing to pay a bit more for that. And I'd like to see more time and research thrown at improving alternative fuel sources [Especially my dream fusion tokamak I asked for earlier...;)] Just right now I don't think it's practical to switch most countries over. The Eastern US and most of Western Europe I think are notable exceptions, though - because of the small distances involved in normal travel, vehicles with less range and longer recharge/refuel cycles are practical. Anybody else from got any thoughts on this?
Quickie SUV Anti-Rant Just because all you anti-big-truck fanatics are bitching in here: Let it be said I do drive a large truck (1993 4WD K-Blazer) and the only way you'll get it away from me is to pry it from my cold dead hands. I don't care what gas costs, that's really irrelevant to me. The fact that I'm not cramped into a little itty bitty car shell is the only way I can possibly stand doing 1200 mile days (IL to CO). I've always driven large trucks (up to and including large tractor/trailer rigs, I used to hold a CDL, but no longer have a use for it...), unlike most of the yuppies buying SUVs these days, I actually use mine for hauling and towing and back-roading in places that would kill cars dead. Most importantly, I also realize that I'm driving a 3-ton kinetic weapon, and if I make mistakes at speed and I hit another vehicle, most likely someone is going to die. Just having moved to Colorado for work, I'm surrounded by people who don't understand that a K-Blazer/Yukon/Tahoe/Suburban is a full-sized truck and drives like such, not a passenger car. They also don't realize the implications of making a mistake while driving such a thing. When handled and maintained correctly, they're a beautiful pieces of engineering that can go places that eat little cars for lunch. The problem isn't the vehicle - it's the stupid fscking people who don't fscking know how to drive such a creature properly and responsibly. (Sorry to check my fs twice in one sentence...) They make the rest of us look bad. Did I mention that my SUV used to run Linux (for a vehicle telemetry project)? :) End of SUV-hater-hating rant.
I have worked at ExxonMobil.
Why the recommendation to switch to natural gas as a way to avoid the Big Oil companies? Natural gas and petroleum are often extracted simultaneously from the same well, and it will make no difference to the Big Oil people whether you use oil/gasoline/asphalt/natural gas...it's all the same to them...more or less
further, what makes you think that they won't capitalize on any available energy source? They are in the oil business to make money, not to "take over your fuel take option." A plausible short run strategy perhaps, but the whole game is about profits.
Most of the Big Oil companies are actively involved in nuclear, coal, and geo-steam plants operations, and they are always looking for new and innovative uses for older products such as your favorite, natural gas.
The real problem isn't the Big Oil folks, it's the cultural reluctance of Americans to try new things. And any hacker worth his salt should have experienced this problems in other realms of life...ever try to get a Dvorak keyboard in your home town or try to get a mechanic to work on a Delorean?
New ideas are not popular in folk-land that loves its SUV gas-guzzlers and its neo-Neanderthal meat focused diets...
get used to the concept that our culture needs an experimental elite that pays the way for the rest of them, that develops the agenda and the lawnchair for the rest...maybe solar needs Mr Popeil!
To elaborate on the safety aspect, a gaseous fuel brings all new problems to the table. What happens in an accident and the CNG, LPG, or Hydrogen starts leaking? That's not to say that gasoline is safe--it's extremely flammable and readily vaporizes, which makes it a real hazard.
However, since we've already accepted gasoline, we don't tend to sue when it burns a car to the ground. With new technologies, you risk the lawyers eating you alive, or so it seems.
In short, there are challenges on all fronts for the introduction of a new fuel source--political, economic, safety, technical, logistical, etc.
From what I've read lately, today's IC engines generally top out at around 30% efficiency. So far, fuel cells range from around 40 - 60% efficiency. The problem is still heat. When a fuel cell is large and stationary, it can get up to 90% efficiency through cogeneration, which is using the heat that is produced to turn turbines to create more electricity.
Now, if they can just get them small and cheap enough to work well in a car, we'll be getting somewhere.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Plus the modern gas engine is very efficient, it produces a good amount of power for the fuel that you feed it. Ok some people buy SUV's that have much more engine than they need, but thats another point.
What I want to know is why do small aircraft still use leaded gas.
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
I have to say this to all you folks out there.
The gasoline-powered automobile is still a viable means of transportation, because thanks to massive improvements in engine and emission-control technology since the 1970's, today's average automobile emit under 5% of the pollutants of a car circa 1970.
The development of catalytic converters, fuel injection systems, electronic engine controls and improved combustion chamber design has allowed automobiles to have excellent performance yet have extremely low emissions.
Remember, the entire world is going towards this end, too. The California Super Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV), Japan's upcoming Stage III standard for 2004, and the European "Euro 2005" standards are almost identical in regards to emissions, and already companies like Honda, Toyota and Nissan have already manufactured cars that can meet these tough restrictions, with companies like Volkswagen/Audi, BMW and DaimlerChrysler closely following behind. These standards are so strict that it is more than likely the air going INTO the engine will be dirtier than the air coming OUT of the engine!
By drastically reducing the amount of sulphur compounds per billion in both gasoline and diesel fuel (something already required in California), it now makes it possible to introduce direct-injection systems that has the fuel injector directly injecting the fuel into the combustion chamber. This allows extremely precise metering of fuel necessary to do proper combustion, and that in turn increases fuel economy and reduces exhaust emissions at the same time.
In short, the gasoline engine is still a long way from dead. The technology is now in place to reduce pollutants to almost one percent (!!) of what a 1970 model year car emits and still get 15 to 20 percent better fuel mileage.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
especially with gas being as high as it is right now
The reason gas prices are so high is because people are buying gas-guzzling SUV's and driving up the demand for gasoline to insane levels, while OPEC has not increased production to match. If any chunk of the population switched to alternative fuels, the price of gas would drop through the floor. The lower demand would also severly hinder OPEC, and possible break the cartel, allowing the price of gas to fall further. But with gas at ultra-low prices, nobody in their right mind would want to pay for the (comparitivly) expensive alternatives.
Car companies will start making high-efficiency cars, since a fringe of the population (myself included) has grown large enough to make it profitable to satisfy the demand. Honda has that new car (the Prius?) that gets ~60-70 MPG, and Toyota is going to start shipping a similar car. The vast bulk of people (at least in the US), however, will still want their huge inefficient SUV's.
I belive a Ford exec said that the company would be overjoyed to stop manufacturing SUV's, but that as long as people demanded them, Ford had to supply them to stay afloat. The solution is in convincing John Q. Public that running an efficient, clean car (gasoline or otherwise), rather than his big, overpowered SUV, is what he wants to do.
Good luck.
and I'm not joking... the person who invented the diesel engine originally planned for it to run on Hemp oil and other vegetable based oils.
Plus it cleans the environment as the plants are growing. I can't see any drawbacks.
Actually, like most so-called "zero-emisions" vehicles, this one is in reality just a remote emissions vehicle.
Something has to compress the air, and compressed air is not a particulary high-density energy storage medium. That something may be electricity, which more than likely came from an oil or gas-fired power plant and further absorbed the non-trivial power losses incurred in transmission lines, transformers, etc. (Granted, nuclear is the cleanest overall, but effectively impossible because of environmental zealots - nuke plants are already a dying breed - and ther is that pesky waste problem.)
Further, it requires expensive, filament-wound composite tanks, which are themselves a serious non-trivial safety hazard in the event of an accident. (For all gasoline's faults, it is much safer in a crash than many alternative fuels such as ethanol, hydrogen, L[NP]G, etc., and it does not require complex, expensive, or heavy containment and fueling sytems.)
Further, a cursory look at the zero emissions engine (listed on another page at the site) raises the snake oil alert flags: Although a spherical combustion chamber has some benefits (hence the famous Chrysler "hemi" (hemispherical) head, common in many modern motors), it requires small, inefficient valves, and will have to deal with the friction of two cylinders rather than one. As an experienced motorhead myself, I fail to see how this concept could even theoretically approach, much less exceed, the efficiency of a conventional IC engine.
Keep in mind that some ideas that look great on paper have problems in the real world. Mazda's incredible rotary being a prime example: The motor is small, light, has low friction, only a handful of parts, and you can literally rebuild it on your kitchen table. Unfortunately, although its power-to-weight ratio is quite impressive, its fuel economy is not, so it has been relegated to use in high-performance sports car duty where efficiency is less of a concern. (That said, I'm a huge rotor-motor fan - the things are awesome marvels of engineering. With reasonable care (mostly making *very* sure it *never* runs low on oil), the things are darn near bulletproof, too.)
It's easy to put together a web page making incredible claims (like the split-cycle folks did in Australia a year or two ago) - it's another thing to deliver on them. The reality is that cars are as good as we can economically make them today. They will continue to get better, but painting the automobile as the enemy of the environment is simply not realistic - modern cars emit virtually no pollutants once the catalyst is warm, and there is much promising research on how to avoid those initial few seconds. (Many new cars emit more in the first few seconds after a cold startup than they do for the next several dozen miles of driving. That's impressive!)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
I live in NYC, i ride the train to and from work every day, it's fast, cheap, and efficient, a marvel of engineering.
When i visit my parents in CT, however, you can't do a thing without a car. Now, of course, people outside of cities *could* constrcut decent mass transit, but they don't, and that's fine -- it's a lifestyle choice based on perceived convenience and, to some degree, an archaic sense that one's car contributes to one's identity.
But it's a lifestyle *choice*, and when the price of gas goes up and this causes what were, essentially, forseeable economic impacts, what am i supposed to do, cry?
Stop whining. Take the bus. In addition to saving a couple of bucks, it'll help prevent your kids from getting skin cancer.
[This is without even addressing the point that cars contribute to the breakdown of neighborhoods, and that a quarter of a million americans are killed in car accidents a year. F cars. They suck. No sympathy from me. Gas should cost 6 bucks a gallon, given the harm it does.]
god is just pretend.
Here's a site that I check out pretty regularly on the Honda Insight hybrid. It's a "personal log" kind of thing, with loads of honest personal experiences from a bunch of people who've been living with the car for a while now.
I'd love one for commuting, but I probably couldn't even bring my briefcase with me for fear of carrying too much weight.
There are two central reasons why it is preferrable to have a plant making the pollution than a car.
a) A plant can be located away from residential areas. You probably notice there are no power stations anywhere near the cities they power (except maybe some of the older cities that grew towards plants). We can selectively place plants away from population centers and in places where the typical winds do not blow emission over cities. With cars the pollution is wherever the person is driving, and that is typically in population centers (since most people drive cars).
b) A plant can have better emissions control. Plants (can) have higher yet reasonable pollution control requirements than cars. In chemical engineering when you try to separate out two chemicals, to decrease the impurities in your product by half you must use x^2 more energy, equipment, etc. (i.e. money) in order to acheive this. At some point it becomes economically unjustifiable to continue purifying the product because the cost of the product production becomes higher than the average selling price of the product.
Cars have a minimum impurity amount that they have to achieve (where the impurity is the pollutants). However, we must multiply that by the number of cars.
If we have plants instead of cars producing pollution, we can reduce the impurities further. The plants are emitting more impurities so they can cut down on them further while still remaining profitable because each plant is producing the impurity amount equivelant to large amount of cars.
(Note that this is not valid if the plant is also producing the same amount of total waste gas (exhaust) as the number of large cars it represents, because the impuriy level is a ratio of impurity to everything rather than an amount. Under this circumstance that ratio is the same--I am assuming that it should be easy to cut back on the total waste gas when you are producing much more waste gas, thus giving a higher concentration of pollutants, which in turn makes it easier to separate them out).
- Sig
I don't think fuel cells are efficient or cost-effective enough yet. It'll be nice to see more electric-gas hybrid cars out there, but with the 3-gallons-per-mile SUV craze going on, I don't think it'll happen all that soon.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
There's another problem with methanol: it's hydrophylic, so it will absorb moisture from the air, contaminating it. I'd be interested in hearing how Brazilians address this problem. Another thing about alternative fuels is that I don't know of any that have the energy density of gasoline, so you have these big, unwieldy containers to deal with if you want the same range. Not to mention, where am I going to get my liquid oxygen to refill my fuel-cell equipped car? By the way, the FBI is very interested in buyers of LOX and liquid hydrogen. It seems that they're quite useful to terrorist bombers (uh oh, Carnivore is gonna log that one!). Gasoline is a great example of what being 'first-mover' can get you: dominance due to the sheer magnitude of the investment in infrastructure that grows up.
Well, turbines are great for bulk power, but not for efficient power. A jet engine, which is a kind of turbine (admittedly being used in reverse to the application in a power plant) would need to put out about 100lb of thrust to maintain freeway cruising speeds in the average car. The jet fuel (kerosene) required to do that would be in the range of 4 MPG. Compare that to the freeway cruising efficiency of a modern car.
As for where my statistics come from, the statistic about the hydro grid comes from the book, "An Engineer's Guide to Hydro-Electric Distribution Systems". The figure about the efficiency of the average car is taken from an article that I recently read on SAE's website at www.sae.org .
Friction in the engine, nonrecoverable heat from the combustion (biggie), friction in the transmission and tires, etc.Not to mention energy wasted as noise, energy wasted pushing the car through the air, energy wasted as the car idles.
Many new car brochures have the engine's power rated in kW now. If you stop and think about how much heat the car throws off for the fact that it's converting x kW of chemical energy into mechanical energy, I still think that's pretty impressive. By comparison, consider how much heat your computer's power supply throws off when you've got it running at its full 200W load (lots of disk drives and cards)....
You're also completely ignoring the benefits of regenerative braking in electric vehicles/hybrids.Nah. They're there, but I'm sure it's negligible. Consider the energy used to make the vehicle maintain a given speed. When you apply the brakes, if the traction motor is 90% efficient both driving and braking the car, 10% of your kinetic energy will be wasted as heat. The other 90% will go to recharge the batteries. Recharging batteries is an inefficient proposition - on the order of 50% maximum. I'm sure that regenerative braking improves cruising range by a few miles, but not much overall.
The more important benefit of an electric or fuel-cell powered car is that when you're stopped, the electric drive motor is off. The batteries or fuel cells are not running an idling engine, the way a gas tank has to keep an internal combustion engine running at stoplights. For city drivers, I'm sure that's a far more important benefit.
The other great benefit is that a gasoline engine achieves peak efficiency only at the top of its torque curve. In other words, only at a rotational speed determined by many factors, including the shape of the combustion chamber, the ratio of bore versus stroke, the design of the runners and plenum in the induction system, the back pressure and scavenging properties of the exhaust system, etc... It's pretty hard to maintain this peak efficiency as you're tooling around town. The transmissions in most cars are geared so that at legal highway speeds, the engine will be spinning at about the torque peak.
I will give you this: as you'd use it in a car, an electric motor's energy useage increases linearly with speed, making an electric car absolutely ideal for the slow puttering around a city that most people end up doing. But for the reasons outlined in my orginial posting, I greatly protest to running them off batteries, for the chemical dangers and charging issues I outlined originally.
Very good point. If i remember correctly, Ford engineers toyed with using Sodium batteries for their EV-1. Those babies have to be hot enough for the sodium to melt.I know. That's terrifying, isn't it? Most accidents happen on rainy/snowy days. Now, what happens when molten sodium from a broken battery hits the big puddle on the wet pavement beside the remains of the car...?
Geez, that takes me back to high school chemistry classes...
The "Oh no, more electrical bills!" argument is crap. New power plants would get built, and while they would probably burn fuel, they would incorporate more effective smokestack scrubbers than your catalytic converter on your car does.Oh, no question. A gasoline fired power plant could produce a lot less emissions that the same amount of gasoline being burned in even the best of cars. (I'm using gasoline as an example because it's a simple comparison, not because it would be a likely candidate for a power plant fuel.)
But now that you've got the energy out of the gasoline, you still have to get the energy into the car, and the transmission and storage of energy is the problem.
If a gasoline-fired plant products 1kW of energy from every liter of fuel (abysmal example, but easy for clarity), and a car produces 500W of energy from a liter, this looks good.
Then, subtract 50% of that 1kW of energy to get the power to the consumer. That leaves you with 500W of enery remaining. On par with the car, but a much cleaner exhaust, it's still probably worthwhile.
Now, as you charge the electric car's batteries, you lose another 50% or so to the charger and the chemical processes within the batteries. That leaves you with 250W of useable energy from that liter. Which means that for a given distance travelled in an electric car, you could easily end up using 4 times the fuel as you would have if you'd just burned the gasoline in the car to begin with. Then, if the scrubbers leave the exhaust from the plant twice as clean, per liter consumed, as the exhaust from a car, you're still producing twice as much pollutant as the car would.
A better option is a fuel cell, as soon as they're ready for mass production. A fuel cell will burn gasoline with stellar efficiency, and coupled to the operating efficiency and lack of idling of an electric motor, a fuel-cell powered electric vehicle would be the best option.
And it means no new nuclear power plants, no new hydroelectric dams, no new coal-fired plants: it can be run off ordinary gasoline or methanol/ethanol processed from agricultural crops.
And, it's clean. Running on hydrogen, the only emissions would be water vapor. Off gasoline, there'd be a little more. Even if it's not perfect, running on gasoline, it would still be an order of magnitude better than today's cars.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Sure, the acceleration isn't great, and these are not going to win any Formula 1 races in the near future, but think of it this way. The people who buy the cheapest, dirtiest, least-efficient, oil burning cars are your OAPs and students. OAPs are not the sort of crowd who go out-dragging the local chapter of Hell's Angels - they're more likely to be stuck in heavy traffic, crawling to and from the stores, hoping that their morning trip won't take until nightfall.
Students, likewise, are more likely to be driving to and from lectures. Cross-country trips are less than likely, and hauling ultra-heavy loads are unlikely to be regular events.
If someone were to build disposable cars, designed to last 3-4 years, using this ultra-efficient technology, you could throw away a good percentage of the gas-guzzlers. Less gasoline requied = more gasoline to go round.
As trends tend to catch on, especially really weird ones, something like this could utterly crush the SUV market (another horrible bleeder of the world's resources), and lead to people wanting to buy efficient for a change.
I can't blame the markets for pandering to demand. They're there to make money, not save the world. If most people want to turn precious reserves into pollutants, for no good reason, then the markets will respond and provide the means to do so.
Changing the fuel won't change the result. Only changing the attitudes can do that.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
On this site, you can also find this handy chart which shows visually exactly why ICE's are so inefficient.
--
Jake
Check out Zero pollution
Apparently the Mexican govt has ordered 1000's of these to replace taxis.
There's an old adage that in order to convince people to switch from an entrenched standard, you have to be 10x better. The infrastructure behind gasoline is extensive, and despite the technological deficiencies of gas, economically it is the cheapest way to get around.
The only way to make the alternatives that much better is to make gas worse.
Tax gas. Tax inefficient cars. Raise the pollution controlls on _gas_ powered vehicles through the roof.
You may think that this will hurt people and drive up prices. It may drive up the price of gasoline, and the price of driving around, but if you do it right, you can keep the cost of living about the same. Remember, the more expensive it is to drive around burning gasoline, the less gasoline will be burnt. The gas we burn, the less crude oil goes into its production. And the more crude we have, the cheaper we can make diesel, kerosene, plastics, etc. Artificially expensive gas means cheaper frieght charges (cheap diesel), cheap power (cheap crude/kerosene), and cheap consumer goods (plastics and other petrochemicals).
Of course, this would still look bad politically, but you can balance that out by putting all those tax revenues towards gas price relief for poor people, tax credits for efficient cars, etc. It would also (possibly) have the effect of breaking up OPEC. If demand falls, the marginal OPEC members (Veneualia (sp?) et. al.) will almost be forced to cheat on their quotas to make ends meet. And once enough of the small ones start cheating, the rest will follow suit, cutting the price of diesel/electicity/plastics/whatever even further.
If you are careful to balance the effects against each other, you can have your alternative fuels/low pollution without fscking everybody over.
You can already buy half-electric cars from major manufacturers. Honda and Toyota both came out with hybrid cars this year. Check out the "Insight" and the "Prius".
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I bought one back in April. I can get over 80mpg on the highway (at about 60-65mph).
:)
City driving is another story. I don't drive to much in the city, but here in Chicago I "only" get 50mpg, not the 61 they claim. I'm certainly not complaining, but I wouldn't mind getting 60+ mpg in the city.
Since I drive over 500 miles a week, I thought this would be the best choice for a new vehicle.
Why do we still use gasoline instead of another power source? There are many reasons but here are a few:
The chemical energy stored in gasoline is very high for its weight while still being easily accessible. Methane and ethanol all have less energy stored per unit weight. This means that cars powered by gasoline can out accelerate these alternative fuel cars because they can release the chemical energy faster and turn it into kinetic energy. They also have better range because they have smaller lighter fuel tanks which weigh less. In many alternative fuel cars you loose a lot of trunk space to the fuel tank.
More energy per weight is diesel fuel. The problem here is that the energy is harder to release easily since diesel doesn't burn at room temperature at one atmosphere. This means the energy is harder to release and performance drops. Fuel efficiency is slightly better however.
As for fuel cells, I think the big problem is that you lose performance again. They don't combust gasoline they release the energy using a different chemical reaction. It works more slowly but more uses all the energy more completely and produces less harmful by products. This is nice, but makes for lower performance.
Electric cars are nice, but all the batteries are heavy and they take hours to recharge. You lose range and convenience. Hybrid cars are nicer because you power a set of batteries with a small gas engine. The batteries then power the wheels. Honda makes one of these I believe. The problem is that after two to three years you need a new set of batteries because current battery technology wears out too easily. And that many batteries are expensive.
I've also heard of all kinds of wacky fuels like vegetable oil. The guy did this to his volkswagen and got the oil from local fast food places that usually have to pay to get rid of it. His car exhaust smelled like french fries. No sure why this caught on, probably because it was an obscure idea that isn't practical on the large scale.
Basically what is preventing the widespread adoption of an alternative fuel is that nobody wants to loose anything. Nobody wants a slower car with shorter range. Nobody wants to pay more for such a car either. People also don't like to buy unproven technology. If you want an accepted alternative fuel car which is more efficient, buy a diesel.
BTW has anyone done studies to see if, after the power loss in transmission of the electricity to the house and the loss in the car itself, electrically powered cars actually pollute less than gas. The engine is less efficient, the transmission of the power to the house loses efficiency, and the power plant creates pollution just like the car would. By advocating electric cars are we simply changing the location of the pollution instead of reducing they levels of it?
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
One thing that seems to be forgotten in all these debates is how dependent we are for oil for other purposes. What is going to happen to the chemical and plastics industries - and indeed all the subsidiary industries that rely on their products once we run out of oil? We may well discover other sources of energy for transportation and heating - but there is no obvious substitute for the oil we require to manufacture the plastics we use. Just think of how prevalent plastics are today - just look at the big lump of plastic in front of you right now - and all the components under the hood that are keeping everything ticking over! If we waste all our oil resources on transportation and our technological civilization depends on oil derived plastics then how long can we survive with this level of technology? If we were a more responsible and mature society we would restrict our consumption so that future generations (and we should really be thinking way beyond our grandchildren) will enjoy some of the same resources we have today.
I work at Ford's Enviromental Vehicle project and i can't legally speak for them. Without trying to give out anything proprietary, in general, energy density is the real killer. 1 kg of gasoline efficiently tapped can give you 42-44 Megajoules. NiCad, Lead-Acid and Sodium-Sulfur of the same weight barely have a fraction of this energy. To replace 16 gallon (approx 42.39kg) of gasoline you need 14838.768 kg of lead acid battery. This is ten times the average weight of a car (around 1500kg). Since the car is 11 times heavier it should require 11 times more fuel. You do the math. It may more costly to your pocket and the enviroment (more energy use and heat dissipation).
Ultracaps? That's great. I know one company that sells ultracaps with 10,850.69 Joules/kg. Packs a punch for your house intruder but can't you anywhere (literally).
Ah.... somebody mentioned fuel cells. You can check out one of the suppliers ballard This is promising but the energy conversion unit is still heavy. Hydrogen actually packs more energy than gasoline: 38khw/kg (that's about 136.8 mejajoules/kg). Unfortunately, it hoards a lot of space. We could use methanol and carry methanol->hydrogen reformer that would take up more weight. After reliasing that the conversion unit takes more weight you begin to wonder, why don't you burn the hydrogen in the first place, instead of investing in the fuel cell stack, electric drivetrain and stuff? We are bothering with eletric motor? Why can't we just improve the efficiency of the internal combustion engine?
Relative to electric motor, internal combustion engine (ICE) is highly inefficient. While good motor with a good controller can give you close to 95% efficiency, an ICE is at 17% in a good day. Worse it's peak efficiency is at certain torque and at certain speed. That is why we have gearbox system and clutch. When the car stops, you have supply it with some fuel to keep spinning (idling) which is 100% loss (0% efficient). With electric motor you can adjust your torque and speed electrically and reclaim energy in braking.
I think I better stop here. in the meantime you are welcome to buy Ford electric bicycles and other stuff http://www.thinkmobility.com
Hasdi
Not speaking for Ford
I think the real problem is that Gas has been so cheap in the US for so long. We have had it WAY too good.
Plentiful supply, no shortages, cheap prices. Hell yes I enjoy it too. Even today with higher prices, gas is still fairly cheap.
Its cheap, its what we know. Whn the masses are confortable, there is no push to invest and research alternative fuels. Face it...any new system will need to be able to compete with the existing fuel infrastructure.
As for alcohol based cars....you can make your own ethanol and use it to power your car...many engines will run without modification (tho not well...much better to use a gas/alcohol mix). You can even get a licence to distil your own ethanol for fuel really cheap from the BATF. (in the US obviously).
Linday's Publications (http://www.lindsaybks.com) has a book on building a fuel alcohol still that talks about all this stuff. Really good book. Of course the MPG is less than Gas, but it burns ALOT cleaner....and thus keeps the engine cleaner.
I am personally of the belief that there is alot of potential in these feilds. I would like to get a Gas/electric hybrid (the honda insight beats the pants off even my motorcycle for MPG) and see it modified to run off Ethanol or methanol....now that would truely be a great car.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It will happen sooner or later with enough incetive, but right now, there is a strong infastructure built up in the support of gasoline automobiles, and not one in support of alternative fuels. There are also a wide variety of fuels, and people want cars that run THE NEXT FUEL, not just a cleaner fuel. Also, cost is a big factor, most states won't pay to have your car converted. Most people know how to work on/supe up gasoline powered cars. They don't want to take them in to a mechanic to work on them when they are used to working on them themselves. Mechanics are trained to work on gas powered cars. Companies manufacture mainly parts for gas powered cars. The infastructure to purchase fuel, inexpensively, for alternative fuel vehicles isn't everywhere.
I mean, I would love to have an electric powered car, right? Where would I charge it? Just about only at my house! What would I charge it in? I plug that I have to get specially installed that is more powerful than the ones on my dryer, possibly requiring that I have lines run to my house for the power requirements.
It's not like, "Why would anyone run open source software." When the infastructure is there, and in fact better than that of closed source software. This is something where you really have to use the options given to you.
Eh...
Gasoline is here for a while. There's just no good substitute for most people yet.
Natural gas/Propane are both great, but the infrastructure to support them just isn't there. Gas stations would have to make a huge investment to be able to support them at all stations. It's great for fleet vehicles like taxis, since the cab seldom leaves its home city, and the driver can get to be very familiar with which gas stations have already added propane/NG fueling services.
While gasoline is very nasty stuff, it's a little safer than carrying around a large tank of compressed and invisible fuel. A car accident that ruptures a full automotive propane/NG tank would be far more likely to be deadly than a car accident that ruptures a gasoline tank and causes a spill. Let alone the dangers of hydrogen as a fuel, which, like acetylene, sweats its way out of cast iron tanks.
You'll note that most parking garages won't allow propane/NG vehicles. If, over the years, one of the fuel lines corrodes or develops metal fatigue cracks, a slow fuel leak could cause a parking garage explosion. Since parking garages tend to be under buildings, conceivably, the building could come down. Dire consequences? Yup. One in a million chance? Yup. But if there are millions of propane/NG vehicles out there, it's a bigger worry than gasoline.
Gasoline tends to drip, and you can usually see a leak. You can always see a puddle. With invisible gases, that's not possible: you have to rely on the odor, which you might not catch if it's windy.
Admittedly, conditions have to be just right for a propane/NG explosion, but it's unquestionably somewhat more dangerous than gasoline. Much like a Ford Pinto's gasoline tank is more dangerous than the average.
Fuel cells are a great idea, and I'm sure they'll be with us in a few years. I've had the opportunity to drive a Ballard-powered golf cart, and it was a lot of fun. Silent, fast, much more efficient than an internal combustion engine. It was nice. But the problem is that fuel cells still require membranes that are as difficult and unreliable to mass produce as color LCD displays were a few years ago. In time, that will change.
Fuel for fuel cells will still have to be something combustible. A fuel cell simply burns fuel through what is essentially a catalytic reaction, as opposed to a combustion reaction. So we're back at the same choices: drag around a tank of liquid gasoline/methanol/ethanol, or drag around a tank full of compressed hyrdrogen/propane/NG.
Since the infrastructure already exists for the distribution of liquid fuels, you're probably still going to be pouring some sort of liquid fuel into your tank.
Fuel cells, by virtue of their basic operation, will be very sensitive to impurities in the fuel. Deposits formed inside the fuel cell will require the replacement of the expensive membrane. A conventional paper fuel filter, like your car currently has, will not suffice. That's going to mean very expensive processes of lining tanks in every refinery, truck, gas station... which will be carried on to you, fair consumer.
Electric cars are a great idea, but they're not practical for two big reasons.
First things first, all batteries use a chemical reaction to convert chemical energy into electrical energy. The more efficient the battery, the more efficient (and therefore nasty) the chemicals must be. In order to achieve range in an electric car, every bit of free space is going to have to have batteries crammed into it.
Now, what happens when you're involved in a fender-bender? A battery will probably rupture somewhere, spraying out strong acids or alkalines. Accident victims will often have chemical burns. And every last fender-bender on the Santa Monica Freeway would result in a Haz-Mat team cleaning up the road. As if gasoline wasn't hazardous enough.
Electric cars also need fuel. The fuel, of course, will be electricity to recharge the batteries. If you're plugging your car in at night, your electric bill will go up. No big deal, it will probably be cheaper than gasoline. But what happens when the majority of the 6 million or so cars in LA are plugged in every night? The power from your wall outlets comes from somewhere... how many nuclear power plants will have to go up to deal with the increased electrical needs? How many more Hoover Dams will have to be built? Remember, tidal and solar power just aren't capable of serving any sort of electrical need yet. Building coal or other fossil-fuel powered plants just defeats the purpose of electric cars.
What will your electric bill look like as the demand for electricity outstrips supply? It already does that every year just with air conditioners. Look at the situation in Montana at the moment.
Add to that the fact that a modern gasoline car is about 70% efficient. Not good, right?
Most electric distribution systems are only about 40-50% efficient. So, on a per car basis, you're already using more energy by running an electric car. Then consider that batteries are at best 70% efficient. While the car's electric motor itself may be upwards of 90% efficient, your efficiencies have already added up and negated any benefit.
Gasoline is evil. Electricity is evil. Cars are evil. But they're here to stay; better just to continue to refine what we have. And when the fuel cell is ready for mass production, I'll happily fill my efficient fuel-cell powered vehicle up with renewable and clean methanol/ethanol.
I know for FACT in Brazil you are able to buy a car which burns gasoline or methonol.Most American cars now will run very happily on either gasoline or methanol.
Methanol is, of course, a form of alcohol, and has properties somewhat different from gasoline. For one thing, it's significantly more corrosive to some of the rubber and plastic parts in a car's fuel system. That has been addressed; for example, all new Chryslers since 1991 (correct me if I'm wrong) include fuel system components that are meant to handle it.
Chrysler had a wonderful test car at about that time. It was a 1990 or 1991 Dodge Spirit R/T with a 2.2L or 2.5L engine - the same motor as most K-Cars, Dodge Shadows, etc. With very little work, they'd adapted the fuel system to happily take methanol/ethanol. And the fuel injection system (discussed below) was fitted with a fuel type sensor that would allow the car to run happily on any ratio of gasoline/ethanol/methanol.
Combustion properties are quite different. Since methanol burns differently, if you were to just dump it into your gas tank, your engine would run.... sorta. But since your carburetor and ignition timing are calibrated for gasoline, it wouldn't run very well. Knocking, poor performance, poor gas mileage, and stinky tailpipe.
Over the years, as the car makers have adopted electronic fuel injection systems, this has become less of a problem. EFI systems are meant to enhance driveability, gas mileage, performance and emissions by monitoring how the engine is behaving, and then adjusting fuel/air ratios and ignition timing accordingly. It's entirely a closed-loop, feedback oriented system.
As a result, if the engine is knocking, for example, a sensor on the engine will detect it and the computer will retard the ignition timing until the knock is gone. If the oxygen sensor on your tailpipe is reading too much oxygen (ie. mixture too lean), it will add more fuel. If the O2 sensor reads no oxygen, it will assume the mixture is too rich and lean it out a little bit. This happens hundreds of times a second as you drive. In this way, the engine can adapt a great deal to the kind and quality of fuel being used, with the benefits of better performance and lower fuel consumption.
And, if your oxygen sensor's (or any other sensor's) readings are way out of whack, the computer will realize it, and light up the "Check Engine" or "Service Engine Soon" light. At that point, the computer is making a best guess for how to run the engine, and while the car will still run, performance will not be optimal. If the car's engine can't cope with alternate fuels (ie. the computer isn't allowed enough range in its adjustments to timing and mixture) then this is probably what you'll see. And, likely, when you next fill it up with real gasoline, the little light will go out.
Of course, if your Check Engine light doesn't go out, take the car to the dealer as soon as possible.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.