Slashdot Mirror
Ford Airstream Electric Concept Car
Not to be upstaged by GM's plug-in electric concept vehicle, Ford has unveiled its own concept. The twists are design by Airstream and a hydrogen-powered fuel cell to charge the battery. From the AutoblogGreen article: "The fuel cell, made by Ballard, turns on automatically when the battery charge dips below 40 percent. With the on-board charger (110/220 VAC), the battery pack can be refilled at home. Ford says the HySeries Drive is 50 percent smaller and less complex than conventional fuel cell system and should have more than double the lifetime."
Man that GM article on the FP had an axe to grind with Ford. I guess I could have used Toyota as the foil for my /mash/ but turn-about makes for more interesting discussion.
I am pro-lifechoice.
The Prius has been around and is now common. What took you so long ?
This is where there is a lot of money to be made. A plug in vehicle that has a range of about 40 miles will take care of the business that most people use in their day to day lives, while having a small fuel cell or gasoline generator available for occasional longer journeys will make it feasible as a normal car. They just need to make sure it doesn't look like the Prius and handles like a normal car (and not a tin car) and they can make a lot of money. But then again this is Ford. They'll invent the systems while Toyota or Honda will actually make an effective product.
Is that visual design supposed to be some sort of physically manifested sarcasm about "green" cars? How do they expect to win over the SUV crowd with the mirror plated SissyMobile? At least make the thing look respectable when pulling up to Home Depot.
We are all just people.
appealing. http://www.electroauto.com/index.html Examples of some that are available. They are less shiny, less costly, and still get the same performance as standard plugin systems that are new. I just don't like the way that such cars seem to require a special new look. meh! Just build a nice commuter car with fantastic mileage, that's what we really want.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
If you're driving with the sun behind you and this thing is driving towards you, the glare would blind you enough to veer off the road!
Ok, they say that you can recharge the Li-Ion batter by plugging it in. How do you recharge the fuel cell? They say nothing about electolisys.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Seriously, plug in is dead, fuel cell or other self-contained has to be the future. And hybrid has to be the past.
No, its not. There is no self contained sustainable fuel that is remotely viable at this stage.
Your non-renewable options are:
Petrol/Diesel
Natural Gas
Your renewable transport options are:
Hydrogen (*)
Biodiesel & Alcohols (+)
Electricity
Other esoteric energy stores.
The joy of electricity is simple - it piggy backs off whatever we decide to power the world with for fixed structures. That solution may be nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal or hydroelectric. It really doesn't matter, as long as we can store the energy sufficiently well in a car to get around. If you think that is going to be too hard, explain to me why its going to be easier to store hydrogen, because I see alot more things running off batteries now that hydrogen energy sources.
Just my opinions here,
Happy to see what others think,
Michael
(*) Right now all hydrogen is formed from hydrocarbon sources. Its hard to hold as it destroys the metals that hold it in compressed form. It loses most of the energy put into it in the compression cycle to get it into its container so that you only get about 30% of the energy put in.
(+) Definitely an option for some parts of the world, but not really going to work well for many countries as they don't have enough arable land to make all the biomass. And to make it replace fossil fuels for cars will require so much water to irrigate the crops we will probably have to start building massive numbers of desalination plants, etc. Personally I'd rather keep the land areas untouched and go for renewables, but some countries do manage this option ok.
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Dont these cars use lithium ion batteries? Dont li-ion batteries lose capacity rather quickly? How often do you hybrid/electric drivers replace these batteries? How much do they cost?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
And you thought high beams were bad.
A concept car is just what I am looking for to drive to my concept job!
so we can drive around town on full electric and we can fill up on gas when we go on long trips. Stop *telling* us we want hydrogen cars.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I half expect that central column to start pumping up and down with a high pitched grinding noise as the vehicle slowly disappears.
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
Is it significantly better than a gas turbine or Stirling engine? If not, it might be better to run a Diesel powered gas turbine to charge the battery.
Deleted
Why not make batteries plug in play?
Your electric vehicle is out of juice. You drive up to the standard gas station in your special electric car. Then you "pop out" the open standard battery carton -- its a plug n play battery. Then you walk into the station and "trade in" your batteries for charged batteries. Of course, the gas station charges you for the charged batteries. You go back out to your car and pop in the charged batteries. The station takes the used batteries and recharges them. The station might check to see if the batteries work before the swap -- in which case it would not accept them or offer the customer new batteries. Then the wall plug would be used at the station to recharge the batteries. The electric grid is the energy transport. So, we get the dangerous fuel trucks off the road.
Over time, the plug and play battery would get more powerful and or lighter. After all, the plug n play battery is just a box with two outlets. All we need to know is the energy is abstracted away from the car via these standard batteries. A standard battery could have ethanol inside, hydrogen inside, gasoline fuel cells inside. But they all fit into the same car.
Given that typical car batteries are huge in an electric car this might not be a feasible scheme. But a hydrogen fuel cell might be different. Heck, if the batteries are too hard for grandma then stations can have that full service option again.
This sort of scheme might be the most compatible with the current road side environment and we could switch away from fossil fuels and have the local stations on board too.
Hey, I think I played one of those things in Rifts.
e.g.
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?rele
Deleted
In the article about the Chevy Volt concept car, I ranted about why GM didn't just manufacture and market the EV-1? Most people "don't want" 2-seater cars with an 80-mile range? Fine, no problem, don't try to sell it to most people, just sell it to the few people that do.
Well, since then, I've read Clayton M. Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Great, great book. Everyone should read it. And I'm stunned by how perfectly the car companies are falling into the exact trap he describes. And how perfectly the electric car fits his definition of "disruptive technology." And, yes, he does talk about them in the last chapter.
Chevy and GM need to spin off a small division, a la IBM spinning off the Boca Raton PC division, to make and market an electric car. Not a future "sustaining technology" electric car that meets the needs of existing customers of gasoline cars. (Hybrids a la the Prius are a perfect example of that). Just... EV-1's, which are known to have a small market... a market which puts different values on things than the existing car market. A small spinoff for which that market is worthwhile. A spinoff that plays by its rules and doesn't need to compare the profit margin of an EV-1 with the profit margin of a Suburban, so it won't divert all its effort to building Suburbans. A small spinoff that will sell the cars to anyone it can find who will buy one, and will thereby find the new market for them.
Then, over time, the existing business for currently feasible small EVs will result in learning curve improvements, economies of scale, better batteries, longer ranges, bigger vehicles and suddenly one day the mainstream buyer will notice that the electrics _are_ competitive for the traditional market.
Yes, I know... you can tell that I've just read Christensen's book. Which has been out for a decade. But judging from the big carmakers, I'm not the only one who hasn't read it.
Just do it, Detroit. Stop fooling around with the concept cars, the great stuff that's always been just around the corner since 1939. Don't build a prototype of tomorrow's car, build a real car, now, and sell it, today.
Just start up the EV-1 line and build some more. Just like the last. Then sell them. Then build some that are a little better. Then sell them. And s on.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Would it be feasible to make a car like this with an onboard hydrolysis system -- put water in, plug it in to wall power, and it makes its own hydrogen?
It needs to make enough hydrogen to drive reasonable distances before it qualifies as "feasible".
I can imagine driving this thing for three or four hours, then stopping at a motel and plugging this in overnight. It could charge the battery, and also start splitting hydrogen off water. But I have no idea whether overnight is enough time to refill the hydrogen tank.
If you had the above feature, then you could make a trip of up to 600 miles or so with this thing, as long as you are willing to stop overnight halfway through. For that matter, you could make a trip of 300 miles at any time of the day, as long as you would be staying at the destination long enough for the fuel system to replenish. Considering the lack of fuel stations selling pure hydrogen, the above feature seems like a good idea. If it's feasible.
Hello, taxpayers! Hydrogen will never be a practical energy transport or storage mechanism. The whole thing is an effort to relieve taxpayers of their money through subidies. This vehicle will never be practical, unless you define "practical" as meaning, "costs $200k to buy it, and then costs $400 to fill it up". Oh and it's powered by natural gas, by means of natural gas being converted to hydrogen. Why not just power the whole thing on natural gas to begin with? Because there are hardly any subsidies in natural gas.
This article was confusing to me also until I read the press release by Ford-http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_displa y.cfm?release=25150. This is a hybrid in that it is powered by a Li-Ion battery and a Hydrogen fuel cell. There is a "350-bar hydrogen tank that supplies 4.5 kg of useable hydrogen". So you can plug it into the wall to recharge the battery but you must recharge the fuel tank with hydrogen. Also the battery only gives you a distance of 25 miles whereas the Fuel cell gives you 280 miles. There is no electrolysis.
When your batteries dip below about 60%, you start to cut into their lifetime much more significantly. While hydrogen is a very "expensive" energy source (in terms of what goes into processing it), it's a nice backup to help you on longer trips without having to sacrifice battery lifetime.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Both of GGs contributions to this thread should be modded down. First the business with the Hydrogen being generated on-board then (below) he inserts an IC where none exists. Too quick on the draw, GuardianGod, you need to read, digest, take the time to understand what the article says, and then decide if you have anything worthwhile to contribute. Similarly, double mod points are going to have to be used to correct this nonsense, so the mods who gave them to you should follow the same advice, read, digest...
Concepts like this are a joke. It's not how to replace the cars we drive is getting rid of them and transporting people efficiently which will make the difference.
[J]
Fugly!
Without either of those, this is just a short-range electric car. <yawn>
PEM fuel cells have been one of the two stumbling blocks for hydrogen vehicles for years. It wasn't long ago that a stack for a car cost a half a million to a million dollars (due to hand-assembly and platinum content) and had a fairly short lifespan. Li-ion batteries to get the same range would cost a fraction as much, and they are coming down in price/kWh at a steady rate. Lifespan is going way up with the new chemistries and nanoparticle materials.
Hydrogen is the other form of Unobtanium. It would take something like a trillion dollars to build out a new hydrogen-fuelling infrastructure to replace petroleum motor fuels. (Got a spare trillion handy, or did it go for Bush's War?) Further, the production of hydrogen from non-fossil energy sources is very inefficient; a PEM electrolyzer is maybe 75% and a PEM fuel cell is about 60%, for a best-case throughput of 45% (before compression energy is considered). In contrast, a lithium-ion battery is about 95% efficient.
There are no ways around this; production of hydrogen from e.g. aluminum is much lossier than electrolysis. Making a renewable hydrogen economy requires not one but two kinds of Unobtanium.
So why's the US government pushing hydrogen? It's my suspicion that the oil interests want all the alt-energy money spent on things which cannot work, thus guaranteeing that taxpayer-funded research will never threaten their gravy train. A few million dollars in campaign funding thus buys them many $billions in increased revenue; probably the best investment they could ever make.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Why are the modern cars of the jet set radio future always so ugly? Telsa Motors is doing right what everyone else is doing wrong.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
I'd really like to know what the mods are thinking on this one.
A few years ago Ford was announcing hydrogen and electric cars, then they nixed the whole idea in marketing form. My friend thought they stopped marketing the New Ford image because of governmental crackdown on hydrogen, but he's more paranoid than me, it was probably some other reason. Now I'd like to know where they got their fuel cells from, because last time I checked it was the Finns that had hydrogen fuel cells worked out. They use them for generating electricity when camping and so on. It was said that it was only a matter of time before someone decided to use the technology for cars. I mean there are people that know of bigger things than cars being powered by hydrogen, but aren't at liberty to declassify it. And no I'm not talking Zepplins :P
God spoke to me.
They have them, I've seen one. Looks like an airstream trailer, but with a windshield in the front. I actually liked it. Airstreams are built well, the entire concept was to reproduce something like an aircraft fuselage but in trailer config, because it is lightweight, strong (plus it doesn't rust being aluminum), and streamlined.
As to plugins being dead, they are just getting started, most of the majors will all be offering plugin hybrids soon if you follow the industry (heck, just look at some of the stuff from this linked show). An article I read said that the night time spare generating capacity of the US grid could handle the extra load of millions of plugins quite well right now. I know I'll be getting one as soon as they offer a diesel/electric plugin pickup, which would suit my purposes perfectly, I need a truck way more than a little car, plugins would lead to me being able to incorporate a solar PV system into the mix (even if it is just a trickle charger from two beefy PV panels on the cab roof, most of the time it would sit parked in the sun), and having a handy whole house sized generator sitting outside would come in handy for storms and whatnot. And I like diesels, and biodiesel blends will become a common fuel choice within a few years now all over.
The problem with hydrogen fuel cells is-they use hydrogen! It would cost some huge sum like a trillion bucks or something to have a hydrogen fill er up all over the same as we have gas stations now. Someone is gonna pay for that! We have no adequate delivery or production system for the hydrogen in any quantities! You'd need entirely new hydrogen production facilities and replace all the tanker trucks or build new pipelines! There's NO cheap way to do hydrogen now. there's not even just a normal "expensive" way, all there is is the rebuild an entire huge part of the nation way. And if you are going to use grid power at local hydrogen stations then electrolyse water to get mass quantities of hydrogen to pump into peoples tanks on demand, EGADS, do some bar knapkin math, every local hydrogen gas station would need a hugemongous electrical supply line in, a big expense, requiring basically rewiring the whole grid. A cost into the buncha zeros there as well. Home charging can take all night on the other hand, who cares then, but at a gas station you don't want to sit there for hours, so it can't be done with the tech we have now at any affordable cost. We'd be losing ground, not gaining.
Whereas liquid fuels require little changes to our fuel delivery infrastructure, or with ICE engines. Minimal changes, minimal costs. We make those now, the tech is well known and robust, and we can make much cleaner fuels (ethanol/methanol blends, biodiesel blends), and the engines being in generator mode they can be fine tuned for maximum efficiency inside their power band and have the least pollution.
Hybrids have barely started, we'll have them for at least another few decades now. Hydrogen is still WAY, WAY off on the horizon for mass adoption.
One thing I don't get about the whole plug-in-only concept is why these cars don't have Photo-voltaic cells to complement the battery system. Solar-only doesn't work, but in many areas you could squeeze out significantly more "miles per charge" with a solar panel. And for commuters, your car sits outside in the lot for most of the peak collecting hours anyway, not anywhere near a charger.
Has anyone been following this hydrogen hybrid project? http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/ It's being run by some people at United Nuclear, a supplier of lab equipment and other science supplies.
It's a conversion system for existing cars to run on either hydrogen or plain gasoline. Most cars are candidates (high compression and turbo charged are not) so you don't have to worry about driving some cramped lunar rover. One of their test cars is a 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor and the other is a 1994 Chevrolet Corvette. Their system uses solar panels to power electrolysis (one can also use wall power, wind turbines, you get the idea) and stores the hydrogen in a tank as a hydride. This gets around the problem that compressed H2 gas is not efficient and liquid H2 is cryogenic. They're claiming 100 miles per tank for one tank type, 75 miles for a smaller tank. Most cars need four tanks to run. It takes about 2 days to generate 75 miles worth of hydrogen. Not super quick but enough for most commutes.
They have run into a legal problem. I only know what's posted on the site, and that looks like it's a couple months old. I won't go into details here as it's a bit off topic but I encourage everyone to check it out.
bside
Blah..Blah, Yes, this concept is slap your mother ugly. Detroit is fucked, because they can't design a car to save their literal livelihoods. On the other hand, the American people are just as much to blame for being a bunch of homophobic, phallo-centric, self conscious, self proclaimed "manly" men, that won't drive anything with less than 200HP lest people find out they have small penises. Get the fuck over yourselves.
I know who killed the electric car --- the auto makers with their butt ugly designs. Concept Cars make or break ideas. Ford just killed the electric car.
Honda should add plug in ability to their FCX concept car for 2008.
\
Bar none. I'd choose a Geo Metro over this.
Some companies announce products that never come out to dissuade consumers from buying existing technology. Successful companies produce products that actually make money and get rewarded for their innovation.
See: Windows Vista vs. Mac OS X, Chevy Volt plus this Ford thing vs. Honda Civic Hybrid and Toyota Prius
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
Is Detroit trying to make electric/hybrids as ugly as possible? What happened to all those sleek, jet-age futuristic designs dating back as far as the 1940's? You could grab just about any one of those designs, stick a hybrid engine in it, and have a winner.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Who designed this thing? The Jetsons?
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
I don't get these alternative car initiatives...
1) They make electric cars that they then destroy ('who killed the electric car') - Ford
2) They make hybrids that are butt ugly and significantly more expensive to buy - Honda
3) Now there's the electric sports car whose starting price is a huge $92K - GM
4) And now Ford comes back with a blinding bright silver coloured futuristic SUV-like car that is the ugliest so far. -Ford
Hey... why not just take your best selling car, don't change the look or colours, and put in an alternative engine that joe average can actually afford... sell a few million of these, then go ahead and make your luxury alternative fuel cars... but hey, if the whole point is to minimize pollution, why not make your first target a car that will sell in large quantities so you can have the most impact?
Also please don't try to sell us on Hydrogen cars, when the electric one (in 'who killed the electric car' movie) Ford EV-1 seemed to work perfectly fine. We want 100% non fossil fuel, non-arabic fuel dependant cars that are environmentally friendly, and affordable by the masses. Thank you!
And lastly, please stop wasting time on flashy prototypes that never hit the road now or in 10 years. Just make a simple car that works and is affordable TODAY!
Thanks,
Adeptus
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Serious electric storage is kind of pointless, as is hydrogen. Hydrogen and stored electricity are both a pain in the ass to deal with, and both generated via coal-fired power plants.
Short-term high-current electrical storage is nice for serial-hybrid designs. (serial hybrids have fuel burning engines without mechanical connection to the wheels) High-current storage lets you get sports car acceleration despite having a fuel-burning engine only big enough for typical use. Use biodiesel if you like.
Size the engine to be just barely big enough to carry a car full of fat people up a mountain pass. Size the electrical storage to be enough to store all the energy generated by the engine and regenerative braking when you slow from 70 MPH to a stop where you wait for a slow freight train or drawbridge. Be sure that the stored energy plus engine-provided energy is enough to keep all 4 wheels at the threshold of losing traction as you accelerate from 0 to 80 MPH, assuming high-traction tires on dry pavement of course.
Hey, that would be worth paying a premium for.
is that ugly! I mean, just... wow. It looks like 70's future-chic threw up into a metallic space-dildo.
sic transit gloria mundi
Boy did I cringe when Bush suddenly got all excited about hydrogen. I wonder if he believes the nonsense or if he's in on the lie. He's really not dumb; that just plays well to many voters.
Pressured by the Japanese hybrid success and all the environmentalists, the US car industry had to do something. They created a distraction. Hydrogen is something they can research for decades, and probably a great excuse for federal research funding. It's something to keep us from thinking about hybrids and regulations.
All these comments about how weird it looks and how it will cause accidents because it is too shiny...it's a concept car! Do you not understand the concept of a concept car? They are merely exercises in experimentation design-wise, with particular emphasis on capturing people's attention, and often have 10x more outrageous elements than the shiny finish on this one.
Also, have you people never heard of Airstream trailers? They're a pretty damn famous American icon and symbol of an era where people were actually fascinated by America's "open road" and vast landscape. A lot of people like them and, frankly, I think it's cool here the way Ford is evoking that spirit and their utilitarian aspects. Anyway, the concept car is obviously polished aluminum. There have been many polished aluminum concept cars. When you don't go through the additional step of not polishing it, aluminum is not any more shiny than silver painted cars. So relax people, everything is going to be ok.
Well, they are trying. The Airstream look is a fun idea. Might appeal to some people.
However, they should really quitely and without fanfare just switch to making all
cars plugin hybrids. That will work as a business.
For some reason all US cars these days look like something you'd rather go to war with than take a ride to the grocery store in. They all look like tanks. Heavy armored look, narrow windows that minimize exposure to enemy fire... no wonder they don't sell in Europe. Have people become so militarized and indoctrinated with the idea that "life is war" that their psyche actually wants cars like this?
I mean, at least in a crash you can try being in the bigger vehicle so that you're less likely to die while the other participant hopefully does, instead of both of you being in lighter vehicles which would maybe injure both but less severely... that would be for Socialist sissies!
Is there any research as to whether there is a corresponding influence on a person's way of driving when they choose to drive something that tries to look as intimidating as possible?
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
...then my friend says he's totally sold. Personally, I think it looks like the lovechild of Barbarella and Back to the Future. What the crap is with the egg seats?
standardised battery modules leased from a company with on board charge monitoring. You pay a monthly lease, penalty charges for abuse, are charged for the total charge and discharge current, and perhaps for other things.
When you swap the battery in it is checked for condition, and you get a guaranteed number of kWh in the next battery you pick up.
There is still a problem, that might need more than 5 seconds of thought.
What is wrong with switching NOW to bio-deisel in the short term until alternatives are ready, bio fuels are here TODAY and require no or little changes, same for alchocols, ethanol and methanol.
There is just NO DESIRE in the US to switch. I blame the individual for not making the choice as they think it is their RIGHT to pollute. Oh well. You can power a car on water if you really want. But no, you DONT want it. You can make bio deisels in your own garden, and alchocols easily from wood.
YOU JUST DONT WANT TO CHANGE:
As I live and work in a major city (L.A.) and rarely leave my 10-mile radius I would love an electric car. Unfortunately, I live in an apartment and park on the street. No, I do not think an extension cord would work.
That seems to be a paradox I haven't seen addressed. Electric cars seem to be designed for urban drivers with short commutes. Many of those who live in urban areas do not have a garage and charging would be difficult, if not impossible. Will there be a way to "fill" the battery as quickly and easily as you can at a gas station?
First thing noteworthy in my mind was the USB/Firewire compartment in the back right below the video camera compartment. WTF? Were they just sticking labels on the doors?
Next, some of the images of the car in action made me think of the car as something familiar but I couldn't quite put my finger on it until it hit me. Does this car remind anyone else of the Oscar Meyer weiner car?!
No matter how hard you try, how much you do to it, you will never, ever, make the symbol of coolness, a minivan.
You guys immediately became uncool as soon as you had kids, it's time to face the music.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
As a consumer and someone who CAN produce his own hydrogen (Living in South Florida, I certainly do have access to significant amount of solar energy), do I really care how ineffecient splitting water is compared to a perfect solution? I know, I'm an evil SOB for even thinking individuals can tell the oil company AND government to go stick their pricing and taxes where the sun doesn't shine. But the last is what has the leftist in the biggest uproar, hydrogen will mean a shortfall of tax revenues needed to fund their agenda and having independence for individuals of not having the government controling their daily life by yet another means (taxes does indeed control behavior, see sin taxes).
As far as Ford's vehicle, OMG is that damn thing ugly! Compared to Honda http://world.honda.com/fcx/ that thing looks like it should be back in the 1970s. Honda is also working on Home Energy Stations (can't find the latest press release showing what it would look like in a typical garage) with the first version using natural gas (home solar is in developement) that should be going on sale in 08 with the FCX.
Dammy
Wasn't this a joint venture between Ford and Coors Silver Bullet? I guess people won't need to worry about this thing being stolen.
GMs pretend vehicle just got one-upped by Ford.
GM -- "...and our vehicle will make your toast and tie your shoes!"
Ford -- "Well that's nothing! Our vehicle will fly, read your thoughts and, and, and...and it has the Cloak of Invisibility!!! Yea! That's it!."
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
The red trim around the windows really made no sense to me. Give it a decent paint job and it would actually look pretty decent. But if that ever gets to the market I doubt the windows and door will stay that shape.
disclaimer, never built the kit: discliamer2, if I had the loot I'd buy one and build one right now, they look spiffy (or spec out my own parts for a larger vehicle experience). Probably do a small pickup, then when I wanted a "hybrid" I'd throw my genny in the back or tow it with a small trailer. I probably will sometime, right now not enough spare change kicking around to do it though and we already have a lot of vehicles.
I just looked at some of the pics and specs. If you get one of the custom kits, designed for a particular car, it's straight swapping around looks to me. 20 grand for that for labor would be WAY a rip and you might as well just get a prius or something. No way is that figure close, try one tenth of that maybe to hire someone to do that. There doesn't appear to be anything remotely hard about it other than going and renting an engine hoist one weekend to pull the old motor before you start, and that's cheap. If you buy your target vehicle from a junkyard, saya a good chassis with a borked engine so you can get it cheap, just pay them to do it, they'll do it. They do stuff like that all the time. I would think even paying top dollar per hour it shopuldn't run you more than 200 bucks to get a small engine pulled, then have the wrecker tote the rolling stock home and have at it (you need to keep the flywheel apparently though)
It certainly looks like any geek even remotely capable with a set of sockets and wrenches, etc could do the swap, and if you can't, you actually need to develop a few wrench skills. Skip the next level in the video game (whatever, spend some time away from entertainments of choice) and learn some tool wrangling, it will come in handy your entire life. Nothing to be scared of there. Every geek should have some basic mechanical, electrical, woodworking, plumbing, etc skills. Not saying you need to be a master in all of them, but the basics you should be familiar with-and it's fun for the most part, building stuff and fixing stuff.
My cows running on pasture grass produce tons of fertilizer-how much do you want to buy? Bring your own container! ;) (No, they make chemical fertilizer from natural gas, not oil, but your point is still the same there)
With that said, the big push and breakthroughs for cellulosic based ethanol production is getting closer. Stuff like switch grass* doesn't require any external fertilizer and only needs to be planted once. I know we will be going through a transition stage and use corn, etc, for awhile, but eventually the prices and demand will force the switch over, pun intended. It's a fast evolving business/technology right now.
* and by all means, everyone in the US lobby their federal congress critter to support industrial hemp and get the fascist 'tards at the dea to backoff. We can get human food, animal food, fiber for clothes, paper and fuel, both biodiesel and ethanol and all sorts of stuff from the same crop that has tremendous yield per acre with not a lot of input.
Look at the size of the USB / firewire port on this thing! Ack!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Omg hahaha.
Fuel-cell? I would hate to see the repair costs on something like that...tune-up = $1000.
This is destined for failure as it still doesn't solve the problem of where to refuel.
Huh? [devShell.org]
Furthermore, current hybrids fall down specifically on short trips.
The people that complain about their Priuses tend to be people that use them in the city for five and ten-minute trips. The Prius puts a higher priority on low emissions than on fuel efficiency. During the first five minutes or so of operation, it is most concerned with getting the engine up to operating temperature, and gets about 25-30 mpg. During the next five it gets about 40-45.
People whose typical trip length takes a half an hour or so find that their Priuses actually do get something in the (current!) EPA-rating ballpark. People who use them for five- and ten-minute trips get bummed out by getting only 35-40 mpg.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
4 words: Mega long extension cords.
Jesus Saves
I don't know, do you?
Let's look at specifics:
That doesn't count any depreciation or maintenance expenses of the electrolyzer or the compression energy (roughly 20% of the energy of the hydrogen) required to get it into reasonably small tanks. Compression energy would boost it to 62.9 kWh and $12.58/kg. Are you ready to pay around twice the European price of gasoline so you can run on solar hydrogen? The photolysis technology you'd need to do the job directly (and probably more cheaply) isn't even out of the laboratory yet. The PV electricity required to stuff your photolytic hydrogen in a tank would still cost you about $1.60/kg.
Suppose your car gets 62 miles/kg; that's about $.20/mile. But if you fed the same $.20/kWh solar electricity to a car-full of Li-ion batteries and your car used 250 watt-hours per mile, you'd be on the road for about $.05/mile. Is hydrogen so great that you'd go to such expensive lengths just to use it?
(Dammit, is there any legitimate reason for Slashdot to edit out the ¢ symbol escape?)
Sustainability and energy independence essay
If you start with an expensive raw material (sugar) and put it through a lossy process like gasification (the chemical efficiency is not stated, but a modern oxygen-blown coal gasifier runs about 76%) you're only going to get even more expensive energy out.
About the only way this makes sense is if you have some very cheap process for making the biomass, and/or a rather high-value use for the hydrogen. Running a laptop on energy-dense sugar syrup would probably qualify, but running a car would not.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Base Price of $92,000!
"Basic" Paint Job costs $500 & "Premium" is $1,000? ("Jet Black" is a "Premium" colour? WTF?)
To add insult to injury, if you want one sometime THIS year, they want $50K as a down payment, otherwise you go to the BACK of the waiting list, and it may be 2009 before you get your car!
(Tapping his temple) Let me think...
$50K as a DOWN-PAYMENT on a car I won't get until late this year IF it delivers on time as promised, OR I can go spend half that on a decent Hybrid car I can drive off the lot *NOW*?
Yeah, real no brainer THERE, Mater.
I admit it's a very nice looking car, but for $100K it's not really in the realm of "Joe Sixpack", now IS it?
Hydrogen is an energy transport medium, NOT a fuel. Get this straight- using hydrogen only moves the location of the "prime mover," it does NOT offer any energy savings. In fact, it actually is LESS efficient, due to conversion losses.
From where does the hydrogen come? Electrolysis of water.
From where does the electricity come?
This is just so much pandering to the Liberal Green Tree Huggers!
I invite all to do a simple excercise: Look up the annual demand for gasoline in the USA, multiply by 85%, and find the total amount of ethanol needed for E-85, if it were to meet demand.
NOW- look up the ethanol yield per acre of corn, and calculate the acreage needed to meet this demand.
Since I have a slight fondness for eating dinner, I cannot see converting 90% of ALL arable land in the USA to ethanol production, just to make motor fuels!!! And this does not consider the additional acreage of soybeans needed to supply the demand for biodiesel!
ALL this hybrid/hydrogen/biodiesel/ethanol hype is pure marketing and politics! IT DOES NOT COMPUTE, except for huge agrobusinesses like ADM!
But it damn sure makes good ad copy, and makes Liberals feel good!
At least until they starve.
Looky here- If you so despise burning fossil fuels, THEN WALK! Using the arable land to produce fuel for humans is far more economical and enviromentally sane than making any of these fuels de jour.
-?
I assume you might want to tow, perhaps, an Airstream behind it?
Try this: Gasoline is about $1/kg and hydrogen is ~$6/kg (source). However, hydrogen provides over 120 MJ/kg energy (source) whereas gasoline provides 43 MJ/kg energy (source: wiki gasoline). So for hydrogen to be cost-comparable to gasoline, gas needs to hit $5/gallon. Which is....get this. Europe. Today.
I couldn't help but think that driving this vehicle I would have the Beatles song "I am the Walrus" going through my head becauser of the "Eggshell" front bucket seats. "...I am the eggman, they are the eggmen I am the walrus,koo koo ka choo...."
-Eric
Except your price for gasoline is with tax, and your price for hydrogen is sans tax.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Which gives you not only the losses of the multiple conversions, but the ruinous expense of the equipment.
Which not only leaves you in a hydrocarbon economy, it transforms a compact fuel into an extremely bulky one (which still needs ruinously expensive equipment to make the best use of it).
If you're starting with any renewable energy source other than photolytic hydrogen (whether wind, solar, hydro, or biomass) or even nuclear power, your cheapest path from source to wheels doesn't go anywhere near hydrogen. You can turn biomass into charcoal at over 50% efficiency and then use the charcoal in a direct carbon fuel cell, you can get 40% field-to-terminals efficiency plus considerable energy yield from the conversion process. You can handle the fuel as either a powder or a water slurry, so no high-pressure gases; the tanks are small and cheap.
For anything except rockets or chemistry like ammonia synthesis, there is no sense in turning energy to hydrogen.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
You can't expect someone to understand something if their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.
Indeed, in no small part because the acidification of the oceans from increased CO2 (quite independent of the warming effects) is dissolving the calcareous exoskeletons of many varieties of sea life, the base structure of coral, and much more. The reduction in CO3-- ions compared to HCO3- reduces their access to building material in the first place.
The "peak oil" claim is not that we are about to have no oil. It is that the world's production rate of oil is about to peak and decline (just as the USA's production peaked in 1971 and declined, and any individual oilfield of significance you care to name). What this means is that prices will be much higher and more volatile, and the key to managing energy costs is cutting demand.
Tell it to the climate scientists who are measuring uncomfortable trends like rapidly rising methane emissions from former permafrost in Siberia, and the rumored rise in methane alerts from tanker detection systems along undersea gorges such as the one at the Hudson River. Former sinks are becoming sources.
Coal strata mostly date from the carboniferous, about 300 million years ago. Oil and oil shale dates as far back as the Cambrian, over 500 million years ago. This carbon has been out of circulation for as much as half a billion years, and no extant ecosystem or living species is adapted to the conditions which prevailed at that time.
As I mentioned before, the last time we had a surge in atmospheric CO2 (end of the Paleocene) we had a mass extinction. What sort of delusion lets you think that it wouldn't do the same thing all over again?
I highlighted that in case anyone reading this had doubts that you are delusional or dishonest.
Humans with mere axes and muscle-powered saws denuded the forests of Michigan in just a few years. (One consequence was the extinction of the Michigan Grayling, which required cold water in streams protected from direct sun. These ceased to exist, and the fish along with them.)
That was over a century ago (the fish finally died out in the 1930's). Since the late 19th century, our ability to change the environment has increased many-fold. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 tracks human emissions. In short, anyone who says what you're saying is either lying or delusional.
You are confusing a media-driven phenomenon of the time with scientific discussion which never claimed that glaciation was about to recur; this shows the shallowness of your knowledge. The scientists were looking at the historic climate cycles and noting that the current orbital fo
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Though "paid liar" may be the most charitable thing I could call you.
Except that we never saw any hint of an imminent ice age. Advancing glaciers, later spring thaws... none of these things showed themselves.
We see all the signs of global warming, from temperature anomalies to the northward shift of plant hardiness zones. It's the difference between a theory having no basis, and a theory being irrefutably correct in the basics. This debate is exactly analogous to the scientific issues vs. political controversy over evolution: the scientists are talking about selection mechanisms and evidence of gene co-option, and the pols are listening to the cranks demanding that the science classroom discussions include "GODDIDIT".
Your role in this is to be an extra in the mob of cranks.
The cooling and contraction of the stratosphere is not a media-driven thing. It is a greenhouse-gas driven thing, as more and more IR radiation is filtered out of the windows where the gases of the stratosphere can absorb them. You might note that this is itself absolute proof that the surface warming is not driven by the sun; greater solar input would warm the stratosphere, not cool it.
And this rhetoric is typical of you propagandists. It's always "gravy trains" and "alarmist industries", without the slightest attention to the evidence. Evidence is the difference between alarmism and warning of a real threat, and it's the evidence that you cannot debate or even allow yourself to look at.
While you have been relentlessly attacking me for several posts (without linking to, or even mentioning, a single verifiable fact - for reasons which are no mystery anymore) you have never named the professional I allegedly attacked. Well, you won't find anyone named, or even referred to, in it. To borrow a phrase, it appears that every word you've written is a lie, including "and" and "the".
(aside before I end this: even Robert Zubrin is with me on the merits of hydrogen. He has a strong record in aerospace research; all you have is bald assertion.)
Let's talk about consequences here. If the scientific models are wrong but we act on them anyway, we might lose GDP equivalent to a small recession. Or we might show overall gains; most anti-GW measures are "no regrets" actions which have benefits beyond climate, such as reduced pollution and consequent improved public health. The march of technology makes this outcome highly likely - and it's the GW denialists (such as TXU) who want to build dozens of poorly-scrubbed coal plants which will dump particulates in the air and mercury in the food chain.
If the scientific models are right and we fail to act on them, we will lose GDP equivalent to a major global recession. We will also lose coastal cities around the world, and entire ecosystems along with millions of species. We'll lose all the fertile land in the world's river deltas which winds up under salt water. And the billions of people who lived on that l
Sustainability and energy independence essay