And it only stays in our atmosphere for a couple days on average thanks to preciptation;) Hence, water vapor can only function as feedback, not forcing.
Or, rather than jump through all of these hoops and lower the range of conventional cars, we could simply transition to electrics. Let's look at the facts: the charge time issue is already solved (there are no fewer than a dozen li-ion battery chemistries that can charge in minutes). There are at least three techs out there that would 2-3x the range and have the potential to be extended a lot further (lithium vanadium oxide or silicon nanowires for li-ion, barium titanate for ultracaps). Modern automotive li-ions have no lifespan or fire problems. If all of our vehicles were suddenly transformed into EVs overnight, 84% of them could be powered by our existing grid thanks to the fact that most would be charging at off-peak via timers (and get a discount for it to boot). Even if that weren't the case, it's not like power infrastructure is somehow harder to build than, say, developing new oilfields and refining infrastructure.
Even Wal-Mart wants to get in on the charging business. Fast charges can be provided via battery banks (certainly no more expensive than a gas pump/tank), and since most people would off-peak charge at home except on long trips, there wouldn't be a huge amount of people charging at once at a given charging station. Delivering the charge that fast isn't a problem if you use active cooling on the wires. Safety can be easily guaranteed by having no current delivered until a connection is verified by the plug, and have an outer sheath that if damaged cuts all current delivery.
Electric cars typically cost a penny or two per mile in energy costs (my Aptera will end up costing me about half a penny per mile where I live), and have very little maintenance (my Aptera's drivetrain's total moving parts are: three wheels, one motor driveshaft, and one belt; plus the batteries are designed to outlive the vehicle). EVs are quiet, convenient, emit half the greenhouse gasses of a conventional car even when charging from "dirty" power, emit none when charging from "clean" power, any emissions from "dirty" power charging being displaced to out of the city, and so on.
Really, once mass production kicks in and drops prices -- five to ten years from now -- what reason will there be to be concerned about things like onboard carbon sequestration? Why not just go straight to an EV? Even with current prices, I can easily defend the purchase of a $27k Aptera Typ-1e over a gasoline car with similar features. Slash the battery prices in half and mass produce the cars, and you're looking at widespread adoption.
and focus on Electric Cars powered by Hydrogen cells and NOT Hydrocarbons and not Hydrogen combustion engines... they are too inefficient.
You talk about efficiency and advocate hydrogen fuel cells in the same sentence? You do realize that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are extremely inefficient, right? At low loads, fuel cell vehicles are typically 46% efficient at turning hydrogen in the tank into wheel torque and 36% in the NEDC driving cycle. On top of that, you have generation losses (modern power plants are 40-50%, older ~30%, and possibly up to 60% in the future), transmission losses (7.2% average in the US), electrolysis losses (80-85% efficiency if done in the most efficient manner possible, regeneratively on hot steam). Which makes hydrogen worse than gasoline in terms of a carbon footprint. You can also make it from methane reforming, but that's no better. You can grow it from bacteria, but that costs an utter fortune. There are direct sunlight to hydrogen cells, but they are expensive, very inefficient, and break down quickly.
Scientists have known about organics in space for a long, long time.
The reason why Titan has large amounts of methane is A) there's no oxygen to reduce it to CO2 and H2O; B) there's little sunlight, so photochemistry that can make Titan lose its hydrogen is slow; and C) Titan is "freaking cold", and so ices can outgas for a long time and chemistry occurs slowly.
"In Future News, misleb died last night after being hit in the neck with a throwing star. Hir last words reportedly were, 'If... only... I had listened.'";)
Realistically, if you're trying not to be seen, do you:
A) Stand in the light, or B) Stand in the shadows, or C) Pat Buchanan
Besides, it isn't just about seeing a potential attacker it is about being seen by others in case you are attacked.
So... we now are in a world where people can see you clearly enough to tell that you're being attacked but can't hear you, and the criminals can't force you out of the light? Is this crime going on in the middle of a Vegas casino where the victim is superglued to a slot machine?
And what about more innocent things like being seen by a car in a parking lot?
Now that wouldn't be about crime, now would it? If so, that would make it unrelated to my original post which specified "at least when it comes to crime", now wouldn't it?
Because people like having the outdoors illuminated...
Speak for yourself.
particularly public areas
This wouldn't have anything to do with that "false sense of security", now would it?
That's because they aren't very bright.
But in a Bortle limit of one, they *are*, which is part of what makes it so amazing. You've never been to anywhere that dark and looked up at a moonless sky before, have you? It's really incredible.
At what cost?
In most cases, negative cost. Low scattering lights, like sodium, tend to be relatively cheap for how much light they provide, and proper fixtures direct more of the light where you want it.
And what does it really accomplish?
We spend a fortune trying to keep 180 degrees of our view (the ground) pristine in appearance. Yet we seem to have no problem with obliterating from view the equally stunning 180 degrees of view above us. Why? Probably because most people have never even seen it.
There are a lot of problems with LED lights. I really was looking to switch to LEDs recently when I was running low on fluorescents, but the choices out there aren't very good. Most are either too narrow field (they tend to be like spotlights) or too dim. The one that I found that had a high enough brightness for regular socket applications was not only very large, but it got horrible ratings on the sites that were selling it, ranging from the light color being an eye-hurting blue to it not actually seeming to make the room any brighter than an equivalent wattage CFL.
I decided to wait. I'll check up on the tech again in a few years.
It's more often more about the perception of safety than actual safety, at least when it comes to crime. Lights leave shadows where objects block them. When your night vision adjusts to the light, the shadows, and anything in them, get proportionally dimmer to you, making it harder to see someone "lurking in the shadows".
There's a lot more we could do about night lighting. A hundred years ago, almost everyone lived in a Bortle scale 1 area. Now, almost nobody in the first world does, and even much of the third world has elevated Bortle limits. What percentage of Americans do you think have ever seen zodiacal light, gegenschein, shadows cast from Scorpius and Sagittarius, or had Jupiter and Venus affect their dark adaptation? It doesn't have to be this way. Some types of lights are subject to far less atmospheric scattering. Properly designed fixtures can eliminate most of the overhead glow and even give you more light for the areas you're trying to illuminate. And so on.
"Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%."
Huh? Why would you grow switchgrass on corn lands? The whole point of switchgrass it that you can grow it on marginal lands, freeing croplands for food production. On crop lands, cellulosic ethanol is to be made from corn stover and the like.
Here's an interesting analysis of the studies from a member of the UC Davis faculty. He strongly disagrees with the methodology used.
Well, either way, I think we can all agree that corn ethanol from the corn itself is lousy, cellulosic ethanol from waste streams is good, and everything else is up in the air.
We have hundreds of years of coal and thousands to tens of thousands of years of nuclear (w/breeders and seawater extraction), as well as billions of years of solar, wind, wave, and geothermal, and possibly fusion, depending on technology. There's no way we can run out of electricity generation potential.
Whoosh! Now I have a flying car, and the flight is Free, because a gust of high wind took me off the overpass!
Did you forget that it has a 0.11 drag coefficient and small cross-sectional area? It's light (~1500 lbs), but incredibly aerodynamic (2 1/2 to 5 times more aerodynamic than your average car). And this includes the sides. They've already done road tests and had it passed at high speed by a semi, and it didn't even budge.
It's really, really simple. He has a spinning magnet and metal bars with coils of wire wrapped around them around the magnet. What happens when it spins? That's right, you induce AC current. What happens when you induce a fluctuating magnetic field through a metal? That's right, hysteresis drag. So, he's basically built a magnetic brake. Then he shorts out his coils, and what happens? Sure enough, it accelerates; he's shorted out his brake!
I think it's a dumb idea, but apparently at least some people agree with you. Project Better Place has raised $200M dollars to build a network of battery replacement stations across Israel and has partnered with Renault-Nissan to make cars that use batteries that work with their system. And Israel has instituted a "green tax" to promote electrics (only about 10% tax on an eco-friendly car, but about 50% on a gas guzzler), so this plays well into their needs.
The main reason I think it's not a good idea, apart from the obvious issues of standardization, how the car has to be designed around the needs of battery replacement, the massive weight of the batteries, the fact that they generally need to be bolted in, the need to keep batteries in stock, the chance of being given a bad battery (and consequent liabiltiy isses), and a whole host of other things, is that it's no longer necessary. There are a dozen different fast-charge capable li-ion chemistries available nowadays.
1) Very, very few power plants burn oil. 2) Even if they did, modern power plants are generally 40-50% efficient. Gasoline engines are only 20% efficient at turning fuel energy into wheel torque. This directly relates to CO2 emissions. Even on a joule of fuel per joule of fuel basis, thanks to scrubbers, while coal plants release more sulfur than cars, they emit less nitrous oxides, VOCs, and CO. And the pollution is displaced from population centers. 3) Transmission losses are tiny. 4) Our current generation and transmission infrastructure, according to the DOE, is enough to convert 84% of existing vehicles.
Regardless of your feelings on their inferiority, I still feel that they are better.
And that feeling is based on...? I just listed a bunch of stats, and your stats in favor of NiMH are...?
I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.
No, you just did a sort of "wink, wink" pointing out who owned Cobasys. If you don't think there's a conspiracy, then why mention that?
They're still cheaper, and nickel is less susceptible to a price spike than is lithium.
Not that the price of the battery is largely due to the lithium itself; it's mostly anode and cathode construction costs.
"Lithium metal is costly (about $50/lb), but the pure metallic form is not required for Li-ion cells. The actual lithium compound used to make cathode materials, lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), is considerably less expensive. The price history of lithium carbonate is shown in Figure 5.6. The average price reported for lithium carbonate in the United States at the end of 1999 was $4.47/kg ($2.03/lb). However, increased production in Chile and Argentina has led to a recent oversupply, and actual prices paid have been as much as 50% below the list, matching the price of only $0.90/lb from Chile and Argentina. A shutdown of the Argentine production due to process problems caused the price to rise again, but the price was still below list in early 2000 (Ober 2000). Recycled materials and sales from DOE stock put further downward pressure on prices. Large demand for batteries could eventually drive the price up. At the current list price, the lithium carbonate for the batteries in an EV like the Altra would cost about $100, and the material for an HEV battery would cost about $5"
So, to sum up, $10-15k worth of li-ion batteries contains about $100 worth of lithium ore (lithium carbonate). And you think the price of lithium is concerning why?
What is your repeated reference to "safe, long-life" lithium ion? Lithium polymer?
See, this is the problem with debating about something that you're not well versed in. There are over a dozen different li-ion chemistries with long lifespans and virtually no potential for offgassing, and this has been widely known and discussed in the EV community for years now. About the only chemistry that *isn't* is found in standard li-ion "laptop batteries" and li-poly (LiCoO2 cathode, graphite anode). You've got your phosphates, your titanates, your spinels, and all sorts of other chemistries, all of which are safe, long-life, and should be notably cheaper than LiCoO2/graphite when produced in similar volumes, and usually which can be charged very rapidly. A123 is currently the big name in the business, but there are dozens of other companies out there making them (especially with the phosphates).
Even if a relevant percentage of people switched to EVs at once, EVs only need "gas stations" on long trips (most charging is at home). So, the demand will be quite low. You only really need one "pump" in all but the most converted, busiest places, and even that should be expected to have relatively low utilization. Hence, the station need not even upgrade its power infrastructure -- it just needs 100kWh or so of fast-charge batteries, and it's all set.
And yes, an "all EV" future would mean fewer "gas stations". I wouldn't be surprised, if that came about, if the concept of a dedicated "gas station" simply ceased to exist outside of very remote areas, and all that remained was regular businesses with charging cords in their parking lots, used as a loss leader.
For now, the fastest charge you could reasonably find across the country would be RV parks. An RV receptacle is typically designed for either 30 or 50A at 240V. That's as much as 12kW. You could charge an Aptera from empty to full with that in just 50 minutes if the Aptera was set up to handle a 50A/240V input (by default, it's designed only for a standard wall outlet -- 110V, 15A -- but its batteries should be able to handle fast charging).
Many of the new battery techs coming out lately are fast charge. Li-ion, with the exception of the "laptop battery" style chemistry (graphite anode, LiCoO2 cathode), lends itself very well to rapid charging since it loses almost none of the energy as heat. A123's "nanophosphate" batteries, AltairNano's "Nanosafe" batteries, Toshiba's "SCiB", and so on are all fast charge capable (usually 5-10 minutes).
As for charging infrastructure, even Wal-Mart wants to get into the business. It's a great loss leader and a great way to green your image for relatively little expense.
As for range, google "lithium vanadium oxide", "silicon nanowires", and "EESU" for ideas of where the range is heading in the next generation of electricity storage systems. Not like I think that drivers *shouldn't* be getting out for a couple minute stretch every 150 miles or so.
* NiMH has significantly less energy density than even the "safe, long-life" li-ion chemistries * Even in bulk production, they're not much cheaper than the "safe, long-life" li-ion * NiMH wastes 30-50% of the electricity you put into it when charging/discharging (li-ion loses a fraction of one percent) * The wasted energy is dissipated as heat, so you have to actively cool the batteries (using up even more power). * They fundamentally cannot fast charge * They leak energy like a sieve * NiCd is worse than NiMH in almost all respects. * Texaco-Chevron owns only 20% of the company with the patent (Cobasys) * Cobasys only has the rights for US use of NiMH in vehicles. * Cobasys *has* relicensed with PEVE to allow them to produce large NiMH worldwide (it was in 2006, I believe). It's a lack of demand for NiMH EVs among the manufacturers that's kept them away (except for the Vectrix)
Some people put way too much stock in "Who Killed The Electric Car". Here's my summary of the conspiracy theory, which I posted on the Aptera forum:
Let's take a look at where your conspiracy stands. In 1990, GM had a prototype EV that was already incredibly advanced. Nonetheless, with this incredibly advanced EV, it still took them six years after the new CARB standards to bring a vehicle to market. GM was really serious about it, even though they only made a little over a thousand of them. All of the other manufacturers were also really serious, even though they made even less. The vehicle only cost $34K and wasn't a loss leader, despite that, ignoring profit and liability, GM spent $80K on each of them (meaning that profit would require selling them for ~$100K). There were 5,000 people who wanted to buy them, even though there weren't really, as the vast majority of them didn't follow up after being informed of the stats and (subsidized) price. Then, in 2000, Chevron-Texaco bought Cobasys. Panasonic stopped paying the licensing fees, and they were in the right for doing so. Cobasys tried to get the money for the licensing fees for the patent that they spent a fortune on, and they were in the wrong for doing so. Chevron was trying to sabotage this obviously profitable vehicle by pressing suit in 2001, yet not a single EV manufacturer stopped making EVs until, out of sheer coincidence, the CARB rules that required zero-emission vehicles in California were overturned, wherein they *all* stopped making them. This obviously was due to oil company repression, having nothing to do with the CARB rule changes. GM had already shut down almost all of their part lines, but somehow it was the lack of batteries that killed it (once again, having nothing to do with the CARB rule changes right before they all discontinued their EVs). Despite the tens of billions of dollars that go into facing lawsuits, and the fact that waivers don't begin to eliminate lawsuits, liability was just a cheap excuse. And keeping part lines open, who cares? The fact that GM was leaking money like a sieve was irrelevant. GM was so enthralled with the profit potential for their revolutionary EV1 that they sold the patent for the vehicle's batteries to a third party. Apparently Chevron had paid GM, so that even though GM saw electric cars as having huge profit potential, the potential to replace gasoline cars, and the fact that GM's income is in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year, Chevron apparently had that kind of disposable income for a big enough payoff that GM would sabotage trillions of dollars of future income. Big, big payoff! And they made these billions to trillions of dollar secret deals without the SEC or IRS noticing. Chevron not only did this with GM, but also with the other major auto manufacturers. So in the pocket of Chevron was GM that they actively continue trying to repress the EV1 to this day. Of course, they had a moment of insanity and instead of destroying them all, they outright donated several dozen to universities and museums where everyone could see them. Bu
They haven't announced a date -- but I'm not a Californian, and I'm getting one. The term is "intermediary";) In my case, I have cousins who live in CA.
Sure, you'll pay taxes twice, but on the other hand, you can take advantage of big tax incentives in CA for alternative-fuel vehicles.
First off, no resource, with the possible exception of helium, is in danger of "running out" on Earth, or even "running low" (helium is a special case because it cannot realistically be manufactured in quantity, it is only retained in certain geological formations (along with natural gas), and the planet's reserves of it are being released as we extract thenatural gas). When people say we're "running out" of something, they mean that there's going to be a price spike. This can be from two causes:
1) Cheap ways to produce it are no longer viable. Petroleum may end up falling into this category as we run out of light sweet crude and have to fall back to bitumen, coal liquefaction, shale, etc. 2) There are a shortage of mines to produce it or a shortage of recovery circuits for mines for other products that produce it in their tailings. Indium is a good example of this (used in LCD screens and CIGS solar cells), whose price was low until these technologies started being produced in bulk and whose production can now no longer keep up with demand.
Both of these types of shortages can be addressed. The first case leads to higher market prices until either technology or resource exploration can catch up. The second case leads to a temporary price spike (sometimes a huge one), but is typically resolved in 2-6 years or so after it raises its head (if there's a profit to be made, you better believe someone will try to do so).
Really, Tesla's approach is not economical for anything but the high-end market. "Laptop batteries" (graphite anode, LiCoO2 cathode) are ill-suited for EV applications. They're too expensive, and even if they weren't, their lifespans are too short, so only those who have money to burn can afford them. I think Aptera's approach is the most realistic: first, use a reasonable battery choice (lithium phosphate) -- sacrifice a little energy density for long life, a high degree of safety, high power density, low cost, and fast charging. Second, build the car light and ultra-aerodynamic. This adds extra cost, but it lets you get by on signficantly less battery power, meaning less battery expense (the Typ-1e only needs 10kWh for 120 mi). And since battery expense is the big cost in EVs, the extra you spent on streamlining is saved several times over in batteries.
All of these promise 2-3x energy density with current tech while retaining rapid charge ability, and lower cost -- thus keeping all of the EV advantages over gasoline vehicles (noise, efficiency, home charging, pollution reduction, pollution displacement, high torque, low maintenance, low energy costs, etc), while meeting all of gasoline's traditional advantages over EVs (purchase price, range, recharge time). They're game changers. For now, we'll stick with a normal gasoline sedan for long trips (until a fast charging infrastructure becomes widespread) and our (upcoming) Aptera for daily use.
The whole point of maglev generally is to stop in-between. They're not usually for travels thousands of miles long, but for <1000mi, they've a great way to travel (if they're anything at all like the non-maglev but still very fast Shinkansen).
I was surprised that they didn't have "flying car" on there.:) I hear that Moller is due to have the Skycar out in a couple years. I heard that a couple years ago, and a couple years before that, and a couple years before that.;) I guess the closest we can get right now to a flying car is this.
1. (100 points): If you had a wig, pepper spray, an adult diaper, a new steel mallet, a knife, rubber tubing, and a large garbage bag, what would you do with them?
Reprocessing: Yes, and it means that there's a lot less of it to boot. Breeders: Depends on the design as to how dangerous it is, but it means that there's a lot less of it.
Slashdot Mirror
And it only stays in our atmosphere for a couple days on average thanks to preciptation ;) Hence, water vapor can only function as feedback, not forcing.
Or, rather than jump through all of these hoops and lower the range of conventional cars, we could simply transition to electrics. Let's look at the facts: the charge time issue is already solved (there are no fewer than a dozen li-ion battery chemistries that can charge in minutes). There are at least three techs out there that would 2-3x the range and have the potential to be extended a lot further (lithium vanadium oxide or silicon nanowires for li-ion, barium titanate for ultracaps). Modern automotive li-ions have no lifespan or fire problems. If all of our vehicles were suddenly transformed into EVs overnight, 84% of them could be powered by our existing grid thanks to the fact that most would be charging at off-peak via timers (and get a discount for it to boot). Even if that weren't the case, it's not like power infrastructure is somehow harder to build than, say, developing new oilfields and refining infrastructure.
Even Wal-Mart wants to get in on the charging business. Fast charges can be provided via battery banks (certainly no more expensive than a gas pump/tank), and since most people would off-peak charge at home except on long trips, there wouldn't be a huge amount of people charging at once at a given charging station. Delivering the charge that fast isn't a problem if you use active cooling on the wires. Safety can be easily guaranteed by having no current delivered until a connection is verified by the plug, and have an outer sheath that if damaged cuts all current delivery.
Electric cars typically cost a penny or two per mile in energy costs (my Aptera will end up costing me about half a penny per mile where I live), and have very little maintenance (my Aptera's drivetrain's total moving parts are: three wheels, one motor driveshaft, and one belt; plus the batteries are designed to outlive the vehicle). EVs are quiet, convenient, emit half the greenhouse gasses of a conventional car even when charging from "dirty" power, emit none when charging from "clean" power, any emissions from "dirty" power charging being displaced to out of the city, and so on.
Really, once mass production kicks in and drops prices -- five to ten years from now -- what reason will there be to be concerned about things like onboard carbon sequestration? Why not just go straight to an EV? Even with current prices, I can easily defend the purchase of a $27k Aptera Typ-1e over a gasoline car with similar features. Slash the battery prices in half and mass produce the cars, and you're looking at widespread adoption.
and focus on Electric Cars powered by Hydrogen cells and NOT Hydrocarbons and not Hydrogen combustion engines... they are too inefficient.
You talk about efficiency and advocate hydrogen fuel cells in the same sentence? You do realize that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are extremely inefficient, right? At low loads, fuel cell vehicles are typically 46% efficient at turning hydrogen in the tank into wheel torque and 36% in the NEDC driving cycle. On top of that, you have generation losses (modern power plants are 40-50%, older ~30%, and possibly up to 60% in the future), transmission losses (7.2% average in the US), electrolysis losses (80-85% efficiency if done in the most efficient manner possible, regeneratively on hot steam). Which makes hydrogen worse than gasoline in terms of a carbon footprint. You can also make it from methane reforming, but that's no better. You can grow it from bacteria, but that costs an utter fortune. There are direct sunlight to hydrogen cells, but they are expensive, very inefficient, and break down quickly.
The hydrogen economy is simply unrealistic. On the other hand, there is an awful lot of promise in electric vehicles.
Scientists have known about organics in space for a long, long time.
The reason why Titan has large amounts of methane is A) there's no oxygen to reduce it to CO2 and H2O; B) there's little sunlight, so photochemistry that can make Titan lose its hydrogen is slow; and C) Titan is "freaking cold", and so ices can outgas for a long time and chemistry occurs slowly.
Yeah, maybe if we were talking about ninjas,
;)
"In Future News, misleb died last night after being hit in the neck with a throwing star. Hir last words reportedly were, 'If... only... I had listened.'"
Realistically, if you're trying not to be seen, do you:
A) Stand in the light, or
B) Stand in the shadows, or
C) Pat Buchanan
Besides, it isn't just about seeing a potential attacker it is about being seen by others in case you are attacked.
So... we now are in a world where people can see you clearly enough to tell that you're being attacked but can't hear you, and the criminals can't force you out of the light? Is this crime going on in the middle of a Vegas casino where the victim is superglued to a slot machine?
And what about more innocent things like being seen by a car in a parking lot?
Now that wouldn't be about crime, now would it? If so, that would make it unrelated to my original post which specified "at least when it comes to crime", now wouldn't it?
Because people like having the outdoors illuminated...
Speak for yourself.
particularly public areas
This wouldn't have anything to do with that "false sense of security", now would it?
That's because they aren't very bright.
But in a Bortle limit of one, they *are*, which is part of what makes it so amazing. You've never been to anywhere that dark and looked up at a moonless sky before, have you? It's really incredible.
At what cost?
In most cases, negative cost. Low scattering lights, like sodium, tend to be relatively cheap for how much light they provide, and proper fixtures direct more of the light where you want it.
And what does it really accomplish?
We spend a fortune trying to keep 180 degrees of our view (the ground) pristine in appearance. Yet we seem to have no problem with obliterating from view the equally stunning 180 degrees of view above us. Why? Probably because most people have never even seen it.
There are a lot of problems with LED lights. I really was looking to switch to LEDs recently when I was running low on fluorescents, but the choices out there aren't very good. Most are either too narrow field (they tend to be like spotlights) or too dim. The one that I found that had a high enough brightness for regular socket applications was not only very large, but it got horrible ratings on the sites that were selling it, ranging from the light color being an eye-hurting blue to it not actually seeming to make the room any brighter than an equivalent wattage CFL.
I decided to wait. I'll check up on the tech again in a few years.
It's more often more about the perception of safety than actual safety, at least when it comes to crime. Lights leave shadows where objects block them. When your night vision adjusts to the light, the shadows, and anything in them, get proportionally dimmer to you, making it harder to see someone "lurking in the shadows".
There's a lot more we could do about night lighting. A hundred years ago, almost everyone lived in a Bortle scale 1 area. Now, almost nobody in the first world does, and even much of the third world has elevated Bortle limits. What percentage of Americans do you think have ever seen zodiacal light, gegenschein, shadows cast from Scorpius and Sagittarius, or had Jupiter and Venus affect their dark adaptation? It doesn't have to be this way. Some types of lights are subject to far less atmospheric scattering. Properly designed fixtures can eliminate most of the overhead glow and even give you more light for the areas you're trying to illuminate. And so on.
One thing that immediately jumps out at me:
"Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%."
Huh? Why would you grow switchgrass on corn lands? The whole point of switchgrass it that you can grow it on marginal lands, freeing croplands for food production. On crop lands, cellulosic ethanol is to be made from corn stover and the like.
Here's an interesting analysis of the studies from a member of the UC Davis faculty. He strongly disagrees with the methodology used.
Well, either way, I think we can all agree that corn ethanol from the corn itself is lousy, cellulosic ethanol from waste streams is good, and everything else is up in the air.
We have hundreds of years of coal and thousands to tens of thousands of years of nuclear (w/breeders and seawater extraction), as well as billions of years of solar, wind, wave, and geothermal, and possibly fusion, depending on technology. There's no way we can run out of electricity generation potential.
Whoosh! Now I have a flying car, and the flight is Free, because a gust of high wind took me off the overpass!
Did you forget that it has a 0.11 drag coefficient and small cross-sectional area? It's light (~1500 lbs), but incredibly aerodynamic (2 1/2 to 5 times more aerodynamic than your average car). And this includes the sides. They've already done road tests and had it passed at high speed by a semi, and it didn't even budge.
It's really, really simple. He has a spinning magnet and metal bars with coils of wire wrapped around them around the magnet. What happens when it spins? That's right, you induce AC current. What happens when you induce a fluctuating magnetic field through a metal? That's right, hysteresis drag. So, he's basically built a magnetic brake. Then he shorts out his coils, and what happens? Sure enough, it accelerates; he's shorted out his brake!
Nothing to see here, move along.
I think it's a dumb idea, but apparently at least some people agree with you. Project Better Place has raised $200M dollars to build a network of battery replacement stations across Israel and has partnered with Renault-Nissan to make cars that use batteries that work with their system. And Israel has instituted a "green tax" to promote electrics (only about 10% tax on an eco-friendly car, but about 50% on a gas guzzler), so this plays well into their needs.
The main reason I think it's not a good idea, apart from the obvious issues of standardization, how the car has to be designed around the needs of battery replacement, the massive weight of the batteries, the fact that they generally need to be bolted in, the need to keep batteries in stock, the chance of being given a bad battery (and consequent liabiltiy isses), and a whole host of other things, is that it's no longer necessary. There are a dozen different fast-charge capable li-ion chemistries available nowadays.
1) Very, very few power plants burn oil.
2) Even if they did, modern power plants are generally 40-50% efficient. Gasoline engines are only 20% efficient at turning fuel energy into wheel torque. This directly relates to CO2 emissions. Even on a joule of fuel per joule of fuel basis, thanks to scrubbers, while coal plants release more sulfur than cars, they emit less nitrous oxides, VOCs, and CO. And the pollution is displaced from population centers.
3) Transmission losses are tiny.
4) Our current generation and transmission infrastructure, according to the DOE, is enough to convert 84% of existing vehicles.
The atmosphere is only 720 ppb helium by mass, so not really.
Regardless of your feelings on their inferiority, I still feel that they are better.
And that feeling is based on...? I just listed a bunch of stats, and your stats in favor of NiMH are...?
I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.
No, you just did a sort of "wink, wink" pointing out who owned Cobasys. If you don't think there's a conspiracy, then why mention that?
They're still cheaper, and nickel is less susceptible to a price spike than is lithium.
Not that the price of the battery is largely due to the lithium itself; it's mostly anode and cathode construction costs.
"Lithium metal is costly (about $50/lb), but the pure metallic form is not required for Li-ion cells. The actual lithium compound used to make cathode materials, lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), is considerably less expensive. The price history of lithium carbonate is shown in Figure 5.6. The average price reported for lithium carbonate in the United States at the end of 1999 was $4.47/kg ($2.03/lb). However, increased production in Chile and Argentina has led to a recent oversupply, and actual prices paid have been as much as 50% below the list, matching the price of only $0.90/lb from Chile and Argentina. A shutdown of the Argentine production due to process problems caused the price to rise again, but the price was still below list in early 2000 (Ober 2000). Recycled materials and sales from DOE stock put further downward pressure on prices. Large demand for batteries could eventually drive the price up. At the current list price, the lithium carbonate for the batteries in an EV like the Altra would cost about $100, and the material for an HEV battery would cost about $5"
So, to sum up, $10-15k worth of li-ion batteries contains about $100 worth of lithium ore (lithium carbonate). And you think the price of lithium is concerning why?
What is your repeated reference to "safe, long-life" lithium ion? Lithium polymer?
See, this is the problem with debating about something that you're not well versed in. There are over a dozen different li-ion chemistries with long lifespans and virtually no potential for offgassing, and this has been widely known and discussed in the EV community for years now. About the only chemistry that *isn't* is found in standard li-ion "laptop batteries" and li-poly (LiCoO2 cathode, graphite anode). You've got your phosphates, your titanates, your spinels, and all sorts of other chemistries, all of which are safe, long-life, and should be notably cheaper than LiCoO2/graphite when produced in similar volumes, and usually which can be charged very rapidly. A123 is currently the big name in the business, but there are dozens of other companies out there making them (especially with the phosphates).
And the math has in general been pretty silly.
Even if a relevant percentage of people switched to EVs at once, EVs only need "gas stations" on long trips (most charging is at home). So, the demand will be quite low. You only really need one "pump" in all but the most converted, busiest places, and even that should be expected to have relatively low utilization. Hence, the station need not even upgrade its power infrastructure -- it just needs 100kWh or so of fast-charge batteries, and it's all set.
And yes, an "all EV" future would mean fewer "gas stations". I wouldn't be surprised, if that came about, if the concept of a dedicated "gas station" simply ceased to exist outside of very remote areas, and all that remained was regular businesses with charging cords in their parking lots, used as a loss leader.
For now, the fastest charge you could reasonably find across the country would be RV parks. An RV receptacle is typically designed for either 30 or 50A at 240V. That's as much as 12kW. You could charge an Aptera from empty to full with that in just 50 minutes if the Aptera was set up to handle a 50A/240V input (by default, it's designed only for a standard wall outlet -- 110V, 15A -- but its batteries should be able to handle fast charging).
Many of the new battery techs coming out lately are fast charge. Li-ion, with the exception of the "laptop battery" style chemistry (graphite anode, LiCoO2 cathode), lends itself very well to rapid charging since it loses almost none of the energy as heat. A123's "nanophosphate" batteries, AltairNano's "Nanosafe" batteries, Toshiba's "SCiB", and so on are all fast charge capable (usually 5-10 minutes).
As for charging infrastructure, even Wal-Mart wants to get into the business. It's a great loss leader and a great way to green your image for relatively little expense.
As for range, google "lithium vanadium oxide", "silicon nanowires", and "EESU" for ideas of where the range is heading in the next generation of electricity storage systems. Not like I think that drivers *shouldn't* be getting out for a couple minute stretch every 150 miles or so.
* NiMH has significantly less energy density than even the "safe, long-life" li-ion chemistries
* Even in bulk production, they're not much cheaper than the "safe, long-life" li-ion
* NiMH wastes 30-50% of the electricity you put into it when charging/discharging (li-ion loses a fraction of one percent)
* The wasted energy is dissipated as heat, so you have to actively cool the batteries (using up even more power).
* They fundamentally cannot fast charge
* They leak energy like a sieve
* NiCd is worse than NiMH in almost all respects.
* Texaco-Chevron owns only 20% of the company with the patent (Cobasys)
* Cobasys only has the rights for US use of NiMH in vehicles.
* Cobasys *has* relicensed with PEVE to allow them to produce large NiMH worldwide (it was in 2006, I believe). It's a lack of demand for NiMH EVs among the manufacturers that's kept them away (except for the Vectrix)
Some people put way too much stock in "Who Killed The Electric Car". Here's my summary of the conspiracy theory, which I posted on the Aptera forum:
Let's take a look at where your conspiracy stands. In 1990, GM had a prototype EV that was already incredibly advanced. Nonetheless, with this incredibly advanced EV, it still took them six years after the new CARB standards to bring a vehicle to market. GM was really serious about it, even though they only made a little over a thousand of them. All of the other manufacturers were also really serious, even though they made even less. The vehicle only cost $34K and wasn't a loss leader, despite that, ignoring profit and liability, GM spent $80K on each of them (meaning that profit would require selling them for ~$100K). There were 5,000 people who wanted to buy them, even though there weren't really, as the vast majority of them didn't follow up after being informed of the stats and (subsidized) price. Then, in 2000, Chevron-Texaco bought Cobasys. Panasonic stopped paying the licensing fees, and they were in the right for doing so. Cobasys tried to get the money for the licensing fees for the patent that they spent a fortune on, and they were in the wrong for doing so. Chevron was trying to sabotage this obviously profitable vehicle by pressing suit in 2001, yet not a single EV manufacturer stopped making EVs until, out of sheer coincidence, the CARB rules that required zero-emission vehicles in California were overturned, wherein they *all* stopped making them. This obviously was due to oil company repression, having nothing to do with the CARB rule changes. GM had already shut down almost all of their part lines, but somehow it was the lack of batteries that killed it (once again, having nothing to do with the CARB rule changes right before they all discontinued their EVs). Despite the tens of billions of dollars that go into facing lawsuits, and the fact that waivers don't begin to eliminate lawsuits, liability was just a cheap excuse. And keeping part lines open, who cares? The fact that GM was leaking money like a sieve was irrelevant. GM was so enthralled with the profit potential for their revolutionary EV1 that they sold the patent for the vehicle's batteries to a third party. Apparently Chevron had paid GM, so that even though GM saw electric cars as having huge profit potential, the potential to replace gasoline cars, and the fact that GM's income is in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year, Chevron apparently had that kind of disposable income for a big enough payoff that GM would sabotage trillions of dollars of future income. Big, big payoff! And they made these billions to trillions of dollar secret deals without the SEC or IRS noticing. Chevron not only did this with GM, but also with the other major auto manufacturers. So in the pocket of Chevron was GM that they actively continue trying to repress the EV1 to this day. Of course, they had a moment of insanity and instead of destroying them all, they outright donated several dozen to universities and museums where everyone could see them. Bu
They haven't announced a date -- but I'm not a Californian, and I'm getting one. The term is "intermediary" ;) In my case, I have cousins who live in CA.
Sure, you'll pay taxes twice, but on the other hand, you can take advantage of big tax incentives in CA for alternative-fuel vehicles.
First off, no resource, with the possible exception of helium, is in danger of "running out" on Earth, or even "running low" (helium is a special case because it cannot realistically be manufactured in quantity, it is only retained in certain geological formations (along with natural gas), and the planet's reserves of it are being released as we extract thenatural gas). When people say we're "running out" of something, they mean that there's going to be a price spike. This can be from two causes:
1) Cheap ways to produce it are no longer viable. Petroleum may end up falling into this category as we run out of light sweet crude and have to fall back to bitumen, coal liquefaction, shale, etc.
2) There are a shortage of mines to produce it or a shortage of recovery circuits for mines for other products that produce it in their tailings. Indium is a good example of this (used in LCD screens and CIGS solar cells), whose price was low until these technologies started being produced in bulk and whose production can now no longer keep up with demand.
Both of these types of shortages can be addressed. The first case leads to higher market prices until either technology or resource exploration can catch up. The second case leads to a temporary price spike (sometimes a huge one), but is typically resolved in 2-6 years or so after it raises its head (if there's a profit to be made, you better believe someone will try to do so).
How about one that just looks like it could take off? :) It comes out next fall. I get mine in late summer of '09.
Really, Tesla's approach is not economical for anything but the high-end market. "Laptop batteries" (graphite anode, LiCoO2 cathode) are ill-suited for EV applications. They're too expensive, and even if they weren't, their lifespans are too short, so only those who have money to burn can afford them. I think Aptera's approach is the most realistic: first, use a reasonable battery choice (lithium phosphate) -- sacrifice a little energy density for long life, a high degree of safety, high power density, low cost, and fast charging. Second, build the car light and ultra-aerodynamic. This adds extra cost, but it lets you get by on signficantly less battery power, meaning less battery expense (the Typ-1e only needs 10kWh for 120 mi). And since battery expense is the big cost in EVs, the extra you spent on streamlining is saved several times over in batteries.
Anyways, keep your eyes out for:
Lithium vanadium oxide batteries
Silicon nanowire batteries
Barium titanate ultracapacitors
All of these promise 2-3x energy density with current tech while retaining rapid charge ability, and lower cost -- thus keeping all of the EV advantages over gasoline vehicles (noise, efficiency, home charging, pollution reduction, pollution displacement, high torque, low maintenance, low energy costs, etc), while meeting all of gasoline's traditional advantages over EVs (purchase price, range, recharge time). They're game changers. For now, we'll stick with a normal gasoline sedan for long trips (until a fast charging infrastructure becomes widespread) and our (upcoming) Aptera for daily use.
Er, darn less-than :P
:) I hear that Moller is due to have the Skycar out in a couple years. I heard that a couple years ago, and a couple years before that, and a couple years before that. ;) I guess the closest we can get right now to a flying car is this.
The whole point of maglev generally is to stop in-between. They're not usually for travels thousands of miles long, but for <1000mi, they've a great way to travel (if they're anything at all like the non-maglev but still very fast Shinkansen).
I was surprised that they didn't have "flying car" on there.
The whole point of maglev generally is to stop in-between. They're not usually for travels thousands of miles long, but for this.
I don't think relationships of any kind in space are a particularly good idea.
Astronaut Qualification Test (1 question)
1. (100 points): If you had a wig, pepper spray, an adult diaper, a new steel mallet, a knife, rubber tubing, and a large garbage bag, what would you do with them?
Reprocessing: Yes, and it means that there's a lot less of it to boot.
Breeders: Depends on the design as to how dangerous it is, but it means that there's a lot less of it.