Slashdot Mirror
Environmentally Friendly Race Cars, Military Vehicles
jackelfish writes "The non-profit organization IdéeVerte Compétition has created a 'space age' race car that runs on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane or butane) and is lubricated with sunflower oil. Sponsored by the European Space Agency, the car recently broke the 'LPG powered vehicle' speed record of 315 km/h. The car also utilizes space technologies such as a titanium fuel tank, heat shielding developed for the Ariane launch vehicles and an EGNOS satellite navigation system to determine the speed, acceleration and position of the car in real-time." And reader gkbarr writes "Is the DoD feeling the crunch of sky-high gasoline prices or are they being overrun by a bunch of Greens? Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors."
Haha, is there anything more harmful to it's environment than a military vehicle? After all they are created to destroy and kill things.
(looks around) What?
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Whenever some vehicle is called "environmentally friendly," this title always seems to be referring to its fuel consumption. It's as if fuel exhaust gases were all there is to environment. What seems to be neglected in these cases is that building the vehicle (or any other machine) also takes up resources, pollutes, etc. Is there any research being done in these areas as well, or are they simply not deemed as important as reducing air pollution from exhaust fumes?
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Combining a standard internal-combustion-engine with an electric generator, and motors (which can also be run in reverse, when coasting / braking, thus returning the kinetic energy back into electrical power) is exactly the same idea, as Toyota have come up with in their family car, the "Prius" which is called the "Hybrid Synergy Drive"
I have driven a prius about 4 times now, and have managed to average, at "99.9 miles per gallon" as it says on the display. albeit, ive only managed that to last about 10 minutes, when doing around 40mph, on relatively flat land, but still its pretty damn good fuel economy
But don't worry, a green-friendly Humvee is fairly low-priority on the DoD's list of innovations.
So relax, will ya... The DoD's not going to start respecting things. And with the Hummer you don't have to either.
Look a monkey!
...but it still doesn't mean that if you can get more benefits from it [eg: more efficient power and better speeds] then you shouldn't consider the idea...
_
Free 27" Sony WEGA TV
Running on Butane, all lubed up with Safflower oil...
Actually, there's a lot of hybrid vehicle development going on at DoD - even for the current batch of HMMV's,
The militray is always interetsed in lower fuel consumption (as long as it doesn't degrade mission capabilities), because that means you have to haul less gas to the battlefield, lessening the logistical footprint. Fuel costs are a very small part of the equation - more of an added benefit than a driver, at least for combat and combat support vehicles.
In addition, hybrids can be more stealthy - less thermal signature, lower noise, etc. - which maes them better for many types of missions.
Size counts as wll - anything that helps load it (or more of them) into a C-130 or C-17 is a plus, especially since the US military is moving to lighter fast reaction forces that can be airlifted quickly to combat zones, rather than running massive convoys of ships that take days to get there.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"Is the DoD feeling the crunch of sky-high gasoline prices or are they being overrun by a bunch of Greens? Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors."
I don't see any evidence of a shift at the DoD. Of course, increasing gasoline prices negatively impact anyone with vehicles - but if you want to save money due to gasoline prices, there are things you can do today.
For instance, government fleet vehicles could be hybrids. "But hybrids cost more, so the savings is negligable!". That's true... at TODAY'S fuel prices. But since fleet vehicles have a 3 year life (within the fleet), and since Wall Street says that gasoline prices will rise 40-50% within the next two years, a move to hybrids will cause the real cost of operating the fleet to fall dramatically.
Or, more fleet vehicles could go with LNG. The US has a lot of natural gas, and NG's price is a bit more stable than oil's price.
Right now, whenever you fill up your car with gas, remember that half the profits go directly to the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other terror-supporting states. In fact, they make enough money with these profits to do things like build nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran admits it is. Other countries haven't admitted it (Iraq, Saudi Arabia), but there is no reason to believe they aren't (or haven't) gone down that road covertly.
And for just that reason alone, LNG, with it's low and stable pricetag, is a compelling alternative to traditional gasoline.
Fleet vehicle operations cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars a year. Shouldn't these vehicles promote US policy and strive to reduce taxpayer costs?
We're not talking about taking away your car - we're talking about making some government beaurocrat's official vehicle much cheaper to run, and keeping US dollars here (and out of the middle east).
The hybrid Humvee project I heard about was not so much to reduce fuel consumption, though that was a side benefit. The main goal was to generate lots of electricity without having to tow a generator trailer.
It was also done with a different engine, and didn't include so many differences from the regular chassis. The one described in this article is by far a more advanced concept, and it looks like it's almost production ready.
It's too bad the civilian Hummer is just a Suburban now. I'd like to see one of these bad boys on the dealer's lot! (I'd imagine the local Ham radio survivalist types could build a whole comm station into one.)
Is it just me or is 315km/h not very impressive?
I live in Poland (where car drives you) and people often modify their cars to use LPG instead of petrol (actually the car can run on both fuels).
The car loses some of its horsepower, but I've been driving at almost 200km/h on LPG myself, so I see no reason to employ space technology to go 50% faster.
..but all other solar/electric/natural fuel powered vehicles crawl slower than snails.Usually never more than 80-100kmph.
For these cars to be be commercially viable for production, the speed has to be near 200 kmph.Thats more than enough for most people.I think speed is one of the reasons why these cars don't sell.
Lord of the Binges.
What's so good about running on liquified hydrocarbons? They're *still* producing CO2 on burning! This may better the dependency on oil, but it still doesn't solve the main problem of CO2 production!
What we need is cars running with hydrogen, which gives water on burning and which can be made from water:
1) H2O -(solar/wind/water energy)-> H2 + 0.5O2
2) H2 + 0.5O2 --> H2O + kinetic energy
The perfect cycle!
Hybrids are also useful for vehicles with large electrical loads, which is the case for many military vehicles.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The new Humvee looks similar to the APC from Aliens. Granted the picture of the new humvee is in its travel mode, but there are still some obvious similarities.
Apparently military.com's editors are all on 'brake'.
I think the military ought to take a good hard look at it's naming strategy.
"The Super Sea Stallion" helicopter for example, whoever named that has issues.
Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors.
The desert version is tanner than its predecessors.
That's one of the most insightful things on the environment I've read in a while.
(posted anonymously to avoid karma burn)
so its a 2 door coupe with a hatch? or a 3 door HB?
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
Swell. We'll soon be inundated by those things here in Southern California. Yup, all in custom colors with 29" aluminum stylized wheels (because 29" is bigger and better than 22"), complete with multi-monitor audio/video spoiled brat back seat package, one spoiled brat in the back seat to make it all carpool lane legal and one ditzy pilot behind the wheel with the cellphone pasted to their fucking ear (ever hear of a handsfree kit or a headset?). (s)He'll be running into/over whatever gets in the way too whenever the freeway speed gets above 3.2 MPH. Oh, and that diesel-electric hybrid powertrain? GONE! Replaced with twin 250hp/1200ft/lbs torque Cummings Tubodiesel power plants at a stately 2 MPG. Other than all that it is a pretty damned cool truck ;-)
This uses 4 electric motors in the wheels.
That means it doesn't need a sloppy differential
to let the wheels on the outside of a turn go
faster than the wheels on the inside of a turn.
The Prius, while nice, lacks this ability.
A Prius has a direct linkage from the engine to
the wheels; electric power is only an assist.
The big generator can power a beam weapon.
The military already has at least two:
1. terahertz crowd suppression beam
2. solid-state (synthetic ruby) laser
Probably they have a secret rail gun too.
Is it mph (miles per hour) or km/h (kilometer per hour) ?
Because 200km/h isn't as impressive than 200mph...
Here's a easily-achived way to get an environmentally-friendly race car: use a turbodieel engine fuelled by biodiesel fuel.
:-)
Essentially, use the engine from the Mercedes-Benz E320 CDI and put the smallest chassis and body around that engine. Modify it to ensure complete compatibility with biodiesel fuel and the result is a race car that could probably go way over 300 km/h (186 mph) and still get far superior fuel efficiency to its gasoline-fuelled competition.
The target market for electric vehicles expects,
and often even wants, whimpy vehicles. You don't
want your fleet vehicles to be used for racing.
If you're a hard-core environmentalist, you're
expected to be dirt-poor from spending all your
money (not much -- you were an art major) on the
organically grown bean sprouts you need to survive.
Diesel-electric can go plenty fast though, and the
acceleration can be awesome. This just requires
a change of target market. Engineering has no
trouble with this.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
...vehicle that can go 200kph (125mph) to drive to K*Mart? Well maybe if it can do 125mph on the flat, then it can do 55mph up a hill without overheating or overstressing everything.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
The wheels look *very* similar. Also the low, compact, angular chassis with no protrusions - the "Aliens" APC was a design which would actually make sense for air transport to a combat zone (which of course was its role in the movie).
Freedom: "I won't!"
The "new Hummer" is driven by wheel-mounted motors, and that provides some extra capabilities you won't find in a conventional mechanical drivetrain. Most noticably, the track (left-to-right spacing between wheels) can be adjusted. That's a huge capability when you have to pack these things into aircraft or ships.
This vehicle isn't going to completely replace the Humvee, but it will perform certain tasks (like fast recon) much better. The 138hp engine indicates it's not being built as a "do everything" vehicle like the Humvee's supposed to be.
Or does this look a lot like the troop transport vehicle from Aliens? I guess if we ever get invaded we know what to run them over with.
FTA: "The Shadow RST-V's reduced fuel consumption wasn't created to make it better for environment, it was designed make it the stealthy and efficient multi-purpose attack vehicle of the future."
gkbarr either didn't read the article they posted, or their military fetish blocked the truth from penetrating the brain layer that controls the posting hand. If the military even uses this tech, rather than just spend billions of our dollars on corporate welfare and PR about "khaki green", they'll use it twice as much on double the efficiency. And all that "space age" tech consumes more energy in manufacturing, and spews more pollution under Pentagon exemptions. Then they send it out to destroy environments with a hail of artillery and other lethal poison. How "green" are the uranium shells littering the Iraqi landscape? While "there are none so green as the dead" (Bruce Sterling), a million American military personnel taking the subway or biking to work, rather than manning strafing runs and firefights, would be actually better for the environment.
--
make install -not war
One of the other articles, either here or someplace else I read, about three other programs the first already undergoing field testing now is the recycling of water, not at the camp level but at the soldier level (ewwww he drank pee) in the field using new filter packs. A group of marines used them to stretch their water supply by a week (80% pee recovery) after being cut of in our current conflict.
The second which is still under developement is the collection of water from vehicle exhaust effectively cutting the bulk of the logistics need in half. Basically all your vehicles would have these units on them to condense and filter the water. Which would supply your troops directly in the field. Again making your troops more agile tactically since you can go farther and longer into the field without having to bring the extra water tankers.
The last is a new tent rain guard, the roof above the roof for those of you who are not familiar with the standard military tent, which is covered with 700watts of flexiable solar cells. Supposeably near industructable. (We'll see after they let some junior enlisted play with them.) During the day all the tents would provide for the needs of the tent city and some of the base cutting down the need for desiel for the generators as well as the number of generators that need to be brought in the first place.
So now they just need to get rid of bullets so we can be more environmentally friendly and of course murder our fell man cleaner, more effectively, and more humanly.
"Set phasers to disco"
The Hummer H2 is not the civilian equivalent of the HMMWV, the H1 is. The H2 is a totally unrelated vehicle based on the Chevy Tahoe SUV. The military is obviously interested in reducing fuel consumption, as driving tankers of diesel around is a logistical nightmare, but really that's about the end of it. And at the end there's this glaring error:
OK, so the Shadow isn't replacing the "gas guzzling" Hummer, it's replacing the M151A2! The M151 is the good old fashioned jeep, with a tiny 4 cylinder gasoline engine. Hardly a gas guzzler. The author clearly wanted to put a "green" spin on the story, but didn't bother to research a number of his assumptions, the stupidest of which was assuming the M151A2 was the Hummer!
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Someone should probably let you in on a little secret: Motors and generators are generally the same thing, the name depends on how they are used. I'm sure you already know this but all of the motors would better be termed "motor-generator" units, because I'm sure they're doing regenerative braking, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the main generator is also used as a starter motor for the diesel, which would make sense as it would cut down on the number of components. If I had piles of money I'd like to try retrofitting an ordinary automobile with one of those pancake-style motor-generators on the crank pulley, using it to replace the alternator AND the starter motor.
Incidentally, the peak output of the batteries is 80kW or 107HP. Assuming 80% efficiency at the motors this is enough to produce about 81HP. Assuming the 110kW generator actually puts out 110kW that's about 150HP, or about 120HP at 80%. Thus the vehicle should only have enough electric power to deliver about 200HP, less than the 268HP that four 50kW motors can produce at peak. This, of course, is only if the gasoline motor is doing nothing to power the vehicle. When it is, it puts out 138HP peak, so either way, the vehicle has about 200HP to work with tops. At 8,000 pounds, the only thing that will prevent this vehicle from being a complete pig is that electric motors make peak torque at 0 RPM, so I suspect that during acceleration the diesel motor will be doing more to run the generator to drive the vehicle than it will be driving the vehicle mechanically.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're right, 315 km/h is not very fast. I've driven that fast myself on highways around here.
:-/
All for a cost significantly less than a normal midsize car, and three times the adrenaline.
I drove a Suzuki Hayabusa. Fantastic machine. Insurance costs forced me to sell it, though. Attracted all kinds of reckless drivers, young guys who needed to prove something.
(OTOH, everything is relative. Yes, going 300+ km/h with your eyes about 3 feet from the ground does cramp your stomach a bit. There's a threshold around 230-240 km/h where tunnel vision kicks in for real; above that, you're running on adrenaline.)
It wasn't replaced for environmental friendliness reasons.
It was replaced because a more fuel-efficient vehicle makes supply chain logistics significantly easier.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
"sky-high gasoline prices"?
In absolute dollars, gas prices are high now. Adjusted for inflation, they are considerably lower than the early 1980's. And when you factor in changes in average income (again relative to the value of a dollar), gas now is MUCH cheaper than in the 1950's.
So methinks the DOD does not have much of a reason to seriously consider alternative fuels at this time. Same goes for the rest of the country...
I was at an electric vehicle trade show in late 1997 and saw a hybrid Hummer. (Diesel engine working as a generator for electric motors, IIRC.) It was actually faster 0-60 than a stock Diesel hummer and it had a great feature: you could put it into "stealth mode" (yes, really) and run almost completely silently. Stealth mode temporarily turned off all hydraulics, etc. Worked great, too. The guy was talking about the vehicle to a group of attendees/reporters, then instructed them to turn around. Unnoticed by anyone, the Hummer had silently pulled up and parked behind them.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
... like the big oil companies would allow it. You're dreaming again.
Every gallon of diesel a Hummer burns has to be delivered to the front lines somehow. These supply columns need to be protected, diverting resources from the actual fighting. Many advances have been strangled by overstretched supply-lines. So if you can make Humvees use half the juice, you can increase the effective 'reach' of your units, given the same logistical back-up.
Moreover, if it's twice as efficient it's putting out half the heat, making it harder for the enemy to see / fire heat-seeking missiles at.
So yes, efficiency does matter to the armed forces.
I don't think LPG is the alternative fuel of the future. The biggest reason is that LPG is made as a byproduct of either the extraction or refining process of gasoline (can't remember which right now).
Taxis in Australia have been using LPG for over 10 years - that's pretty much 100% of taxis in every major city. I also have friends who run LPG. You can only tune the engine for one fuel, so you lose power with either petrol or LPG. Also, every car starts on petrol - even if running on LPG, so you still can't have an empty tank. Also, you use around twice as much LPG as regular fuel - ie. if you get 50 km/L, you will get 25km/L on LPG, so unless it's less than half the price of petrol (per litre), it's not worth coverting.
Looking at some of the pictures I'm heavily reminded of the troop carrier used in Aliens.
Last night I saw something on the troops of the future on tv and the helmet with integrated camera and flip down screen could have been a prop out of that movie.
Now to find a motion tracker.
Up in north-eastern BC many of the light trucks and cars are run on LNG or LPG alone. It has the distinct advantages that it's a byproduct of the oil industry (and therefore cheap in the oil field), and doesn't stop working below -40C.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised /. hasn't had any discussion on the subject of Peak Oil. Geologists following the models of King Hubbert have projected that oil production will peak within about two years, never to increase again. With India and China becoming big oil consumers, we don't have a choice anymore but to think about the energy cost of everything we do. When oil company executives start telling you we're running out of oil, soon, and forever, why isn't anyone listening?
Dog is my co-pilot.
Ok, now since the Army paid me money for 10 years to go into other countries and kill people, let me tell you about how you will NEVER see this machine in combat. Why? Simple. Who do you think maintains the hummers of today? The drivers and mechanics that's who. And who are these people? Simple. They are the high-school educated masses. A machine like this will be way too complex for them to fix. Any "gains" in fuel conservation will be eaten up by having to hire expensive contractors (~$100,000 a year each in a hostile fire zone). Then you have to also build "safe" LPG gas trucks and containers that meet mil-specs. Then you have to TRAIN any and everyone that even sees/rides in these things and you are talking about a crapload of money. More money than would make it worth it. Even if it only gets used by Special Forces or Marine Recon and no one else. When the hummer replaced the jeep, it was an easy swap since the fuel supply chain didn't have to change, just the parts chain.
Before you over-educated, spoiled college grads start waxing philosphical about how this would be a "Good Thing"(tm) join the Army or the Marines so you can see how the world REALLY works.
Trust me, the Army trains it's people in roll-over drills constantly and those people still get even THAT wrong. Think about them trying to do a "LPG gas leak" drill. With literally hundreds of punds of explosive ordinance onboard. This is just another exercise in paying people who have never been in the military to build things for the military that also happen to meet tree-hugger standards. It just doesn't work. Bullets, guns, and diesel fuel work just fine. To hell with the enviornment, the tree-huggers can clean it all up after we've painted everything red and left.
You post a front page slashdot story wondering if the military is being overrun by a bunch of Greens, not even bothering to read the article, which plainly states in the first paragraph: "The Shadow RST-V's reduced fuel consumption wasn't created to make it better for environment, it was designed make it the stealthy and efficient multi-purpose attack vehicle of the future."
I'm used to the editors not reading links, but now the POSTERS aren't even reading their own links before submitting!?
I can only speak for American companies so other parts of the world are probably different, but I can say that over the past 10 years, American companies have started to become more fanatical about being 'green', at least with companies that deal with chemicals. 30 years ago in your average American corporate engineering lab they used all manner of horrible chemicals and it generally was not a big deal. They built things using terrible side products.
Over the past few years though, I have noticed a pretty dramatic change. All of the companies I have ended up working for (3) have been fanatically dedicated to 'greening up' and have put major amounts of money into changing processes over so that they use more green materials. In fact, a good way to get your project killed is to request the use of something hazardous when it isn't absolutely necessary.
The major reason this change, from my understanding as an engineer and not a policy marker in a company, is that companies are becoming more and more global. The Internet revolution made global companies much more viable and much more efficient. Even small companies are becoming very global. I worked at a company that had 500 people under it, but was located in something like 20 nations. The Internet and advances in IT has really made this sort of set up not only possible, but very effective. The net result is that whenever a company needs to make a product, they need to meet standards of every nations that they intend to sell it in. So, whoever has the lowest standards really IS the standard.
For instance, I was working with a company that was making power supplies. They used to make the batteries out of lead and some other ugly chemicals. They spent a massive pile of money trying to work the lead and other harmful chemicals out of it to meet an EU law. Another company that I worked for that did capacitor work did something similar when they put a pile of R&D money into meeting a Japanese law. I even was working in a project to meet a Chinese standard once - not that China is the most environmentally friendly nation in the world, but they do have some tough laws that they hold foreign businesses to but not their own domestic industries.
Whatever the case, people boo-hoo globalization for environmental reasons, but I can say that in the chemical industry in the US, globalization can take more credit then anything for the greening of the industry.
-HJ
N/T
almost made entirely out of aluminium. Aluminium manufacturing plants are normally found next to electric power stations. Furthermore, wasn't there something about aluminium being toxic after being hit? Not that it matters too much, if your car is hit by a DU bullet...
"Who cares, the latest Humvee looks to be a more capable and greener machine than its predecessors."
Yes, but it sure does look a lot less manly in my opinion.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
Well, you know the Army does pride itself on being the lean, green fighting machine. D'oh! Please, don't throw rotten eggs. I just cleaned this suit.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Your taxis may be efficient, but the drivers are hulking brutes who wear metal hockey masks and bellow threats from loudspeakers at pedestrians. Kinda scares off the tourists.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
"most cars with power steering are impossible to turn without it."
Cars built before power steering are mechanically geared down to make steering easier. Modern cars are not, making them nigh impossible to steer under a power steering failure such as when the engine dies. Go ahead and disconnect your power steering pump and see how well your steering works.
I read somewhere that nearly 50% of the army's budget is consumed by fuel costs, though i don't remember where i got this number or know how accurate it is for that matter, this may be baseless. But, it might highlight what the army has in mind when they are attempting to increase fuel efficency. Rather then being environmentally friendly, it might be a tactical decision, a few of the united state's potential enemies control large amounts of oil, this is an extreme disadvantage for the US if they need this oil to operate its millitary. Thus, any reduction in fuel consumption its a strategic imperitive. Also, fuel is expensive, if you aren't spending as much money on fuel you can buy more guns and bombs to kill people. These two things are probably more what the army has in mind as they attempt to decrease their consumption of fuels.
the dod's job isn't to make the world a cleaner place and protect from pollutants... environmental friendlyness is just a byproduct of their machine, it's highly unlikely that it was a prerequisite...
Get your torrents...
test.
System.out.println(syynnapse.getSig());