What's the real-world mileage on your Jeep (Calculate by setting the trip odometer when you get gas,...)? I don't think a 5 year old Prius would be worse than a Hummer, but still it will be bad. Probably a lot worse than expected. That happened here with one of our cars. My Mother likes her car because it's an old sedan and gets "good gas mileage". Well, we put that assertion to the test and guess what - we were driving an SUV. It needed some fixes but got a bit better.
My belief is that automated cars will never happen. As soon as someone is killed or hurt by an automated car, there will never be automated cars again. People who drive for fun will find other means of driving for fun - some of them might actually support such a system. People are too afraid of computer systems.
We do need to switch over to another technology, like superconducting energy storage or metal-air fuel cells. Then we will still have computers but it will be incredibly simple. Instead of this complex system measuring the engine constantly and doing all this crazy stuff, you'll have a system that converts an analog signal to a PWM signal and that's it.
I hope the Automotive Internet never arrives. Why? Because of three issues: privacy, security and bugs. First, this system is basically a giant handout to authoritarians and fascists world wide. One of the goals of all governments that don't care about privacy is to track every private car. They know that measure has to be phased in gradually, so we need to fight against every step of the way. Second, security is a huge issue. We know that we can never provide a %100 percent secure desktop platform - so how in the world are we going to provide a secure automotive platform? Third, bugs are going to be a huge problem - see the Toyota situation. If we have 100 million lines of code, and we have 1-2 bugs per thousand lines, we get 100-200 hundred thousand bugs in the car's software. It's surprising that we don't have more cars flying down the highway uncontrollably. I hope we have less computers in cars in the future, maybe even none if we really could. It'll be tough but it would save a lot of money and a lot of hassle.
Whether you can increase the solar panel's surface area by making a "solar tree" is an interesting question. You definitely get more surface area with a tree, but the problem is that if solar panels aren't pointed at the sun, they don't output as much energy. Plants are shaped that way so they don't have to track the sun to get max power at all times of the day. But a solar panel with a motor that tracks the sun gets the same, with a lower number of solar panels. Since solar panels are so expensive and motors so cheap it's better to track the sun right now then have a plant-like structure. If the converse was true, then we'd go for a plant-like structure.
Yep. That's what I want to study in college. Black gold = oil/coal. Alchemy = turning junk (lead) into good stuff (gold). So Black Gold Alchemist is turning junk into oil and coal.
That's true. But without carbon capture, you get 2X CO2 over gasoline. With carbon capture you get a slight CO2 decrease. I shoulda put "toxic and global warming disaster" instead of just toxic disaster.
Nuclear power is far, far, far cleaner than fossils. What would you rather have? A concrete box of toxic nastyness, or a mist of global warming inducing toxic nastyness all over the place. I agree that we should move to solar and other sources (by the time nuke runs out, I think we'll be flying around the galaxy on zero point energy modules). I actually don't think the suns energy is "a limitation" it is actually far, far more than 15 billion Americans would use. Continuing on the GP's theme, I think the most promising technology in this regard is thermochemical technology. If we coat just 5% of the Sahara desert with this technology, we can make oil for 6 billion Americans.
Very good idea. But we should not use coal gasification. It is a toxic disaster. Instead we should use nuclear to liquids technology. In essence, we combine captured or otherwise recycled CO2 with nuclear hydrogen, to produce the same kind of gas that a coal to liquids plant produces. Except we have a zero emissions plant instead of a coal plant.
Oil can be replaced by green tech. First, one could use wind turbines to synthesize oil. Wind turbines are quite cheap, even without subsides - they just produce most electricity when no one is using any. That sounds like a great time to make fuel and plastic. Second, you could do the same thing with nuclear powerplants. Third, one can use arrays of mirrors to heat up trash and produce oil.
Nope. Way to heavy. Very few ideas on how to improve. 10 times as heavy as lead acid in fact. If you want something that isn't a battery or a fuel cell, look at superconducting energy storage systems. A small high temp SMES can blast every other storage mechanism off the planet in terms of energy density. If you want a fuel cell look at an aluminium, zinc, or iron air fuel cell.
I'm not. Hydrogen is a poor electrochemical reagent, and has extremely low energy density leading to massive storage problems (best way to store hydrogen is gasoline). A far, far better idea is that of the aluminium economy. Al-air fuel cells are 100 times cheaper than hydrogen cells, and just as efficient. Aluminium smelting just as efficient as water electrolysis while being performed on a large scale. So with no tech development, Al > H2.
I've got to get to bed, but a couple of quick points:
Me too.
I think you're off here. Data point: San Francisco, which is one of the most 'human scale' cities around, especially in the older three-story Victorian parts. It's also one of the most expensive. Why? Because people want to live there.
SF is actually one of my lest favorite cites. I guess I'm just not trendy or I'm crazy or most likely both. In fact I know I'm not trendy, I'm actually counter-counter-cultural.
Anyway thanks for engaging in a reasonable discussion, instead of the vitriolic ad hominem attacks and evidence free assertions that are often made against people like me in discussions like this.
Exactly right, batteries are too expensive and you charge everywhere. My money is not on lithium tech. It is on NiCad, NiMH, lead acid and most importantly nickel-iron batteries. Fast charging is bad because it means expensive and brittle batteries as well as extreme loads on the power grid. Think about 1000 kW charging. It just does not work. Meanwhile, we have the solution to range anxiety: a biodiesel generator.
How many times do we have to hear this argument? In the absolute worst case scenario (a coal grid), EVs beat gas cars in pollution. In a real scenario, with 10+ percent renewable and nuclear, and most natural gas, EVs kill gas cars in pollution. The amount of pollution produced per unit of electricity is also falling.
Number 3 should read:
3. If you want to be sustainable, the best way to do that is to eliminate, not to reduce. If you use nuclear or solar powerplants to make oil from CO2, you've eliminated oil. If you try to conserve oil by running a huge public transit campaign, then for comparable amounts of effort, you reduce oil consumption by a debatable, small amount.
My argument is this:
1. Improving energy efficiency by relatively small amounts here and there will not really help out on a global scale.
2. Many attempts assumed to reduce energy use by significant factors infact do not, further bolstering the conclusion that energy efficiency is not as important as previously believed.
3. If you want to be sustainable, the best way to do that is to eliminate, not to reduce. If you use nuclear powerplants to make oil from CO2, you've eliminated oil. If you try to conserve oil by running a huge public transit campaign, then for comparable amounts of effort, you reduce oil consumption.
4. People are misguided in assuming that people are going to choose a "human scale" city over a sprawl. My belief is that this will not happen in an open competition. Meanwhile, in comparing energy generation schemes, I estimate that everyone lives in an American suburb. If the energy scheme is not severely constrained in this scenario, then it is a good one.
5. I've been to cities. I've been to sprawls. I liked the sprawls better than the cities. Maybe I'm an exception, but there are probably people who share my preferences.
6. If you really want to save energy, Skype.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the real-world mileage on your Jeep (Calculate by setting the trip odometer when you get gas,...)? I don't think a 5 year old Prius would be worse than a Hummer, but still it will be bad. Probably a lot worse than expected. That happened here with one of our cars. My Mother likes her car because it's an old sedan and gets "good gas mileage". Well, we put that assertion to the test and guess what - we were driving an SUV. It needed some fixes but got a bit better.
It's the average car, like you said yourself. And look at the Tesla, the Tango and the ebikes, the hybrids. Advanced cars > transit.
My belief is that automated cars will never happen. As soon as someone is killed or hurt by an automated car, there will never be automated cars again. People who drive for fun will find other means of driving for fun - some of them might actually support such a system. People are too afraid of computer systems.
We do need to switch over to another technology, like superconducting energy storage or metal-air fuel cells. Then we will still have computers but it will be incredibly simple. Instead of this complex system measuring the engine constantly and doing all this crazy stuff, you'll have a system that converts an analog signal to a PWM signal and that's it.
Don't think it's green.
I hope the Automotive Internet never arrives. Why? Because of three issues: privacy, security and bugs. First, this system is basically a giant handout to authoritarians and fascists world wide. One of the goals of all governments that don't care about privacy is to track every private car. They know that measure has to be phased in gradually, so we need to fight against every step of the way. Second, security is a huge issue. We know that we can never provide a %100 percent secure desktop platform - so how in the world are we going to provide a secure automotive platform? Third, bugs are going to be a huge problem - see the Toyota situation. If we have 100 million lines of code, and we have 1-2 bugs per thousand lines, we get 100-200 hundred thousand bugs in the car's software. It's surprising that we don't have more cars flying down the highway uncontrollably. I hope we have less computers in cars in the future, maybe even none if we really could. It'll be tough but it would save a lot of money and a lot of hassle.
Whether you can increase the solar panel's surface area by making a "solar tree" is an interesting question. You definitely get more surface area with a tree, but the problem is that if solar panels aren't pointed at the sun, they don't output as much energy. Plants are shaped that way so they don't have to track the sun to get max power at all times of the day. But a solar panel with a motor that tracks the sun gets the same, with a lower number of solar panels. Since solar panels are so expensive and motors so cheap it's better to track the sun right now then have a plant-like structure. If the converse was true, then we'd go for a plant-like structure.
The question is whether you want the Federation (Linux), the Klingons (BSD) or the Romulans (Solaris). Ducks...
Yep. That's what I want to study in college. Black gold = oil/coal. Alchemy = turning junk (lead) into good stuff (gold). So Black Gold Alchemist is turning junk into oil and coal.
Here's how you can put nuclear power in your SUV's gas tank.
That's true. But without carbon capture, you get 2X CO2 over gasoline. With carbon capture you get a slight CO2 decrease. I shoulda put "toxic and global warming disaster" instead of just toxic disaster.
Nuclear power is far, far, far cleaner than fossils. What would you rather have? A concrete box of toxic nastyness, or a mist of global warming inducing toxic nastyness all over the place. I agree that we should move to solar and other sources (by the time nuke runs out, I think we'll be flying around the galaxy on zero point energy modules). I actually don't think the suns energy is "a limitation" it is actually far, far more than 15 billion Americans would use. Continuing on the GP's theme, I think the most promising technology in this regard is thermochemical technology. If we coat just 5% of the Sahara desert with this technology, we can make oil for 6 billion Americans.
Very good idea. But we should not use coal gasification. It is a toxic disaster. Instead we should use nuclear to liquids technology. In essence, we combine captured or otherwise recycled CO2 with nuclear hydrogen, to produce the same kind of gas that a coal to liquids plant produces. Except we have a zero emissions plant instead of a coal plant.
The BGA's fix is TBA.
I see your Badgers and raise my crystal galaxy. Warning: addicting. Use both left and right mouse buttons if you don't want to RTFM.
Oil can be replaced by green tech. First, one could use wind turbines to synthesize oil. Wind turbines are quite cheap, even without subsides - they just produce most electricity when no one is using any. That sounds like a great time to make fuel and plastic. Second, you could do the same thing with nuclear powerplants. Third, one can use arrays of mirrors to heat up trash and produce oil.
Skip the hydrogen. How about crates of aluminium.
it's futile.
Nope. Way to heavy. Very few ideas on how to improve. 10 times as heavy as lead acid in fact. If you want something that isn't a battery or a fuel cell, look at superconducting energy storage systems. A small high temp SMES can blast every other storage mechanism off the planet in terms of energy density. If you want a fuel cell look at an aluminium, zinc, or iron air fuel cell.
I'm not. Hydrogen is a poor electrochemical reagent, and has extremely low energy density leading to massive storage problems (best way to store hydrogen is gasoline). A far, far better idea is that of the aluminium economy. Al-air fuel cells are 100 times cheaper than hydrogen cells, and just as efficient. Aluminium smelting just as efficient as water electrolysis while being performed on a large scale. So with no tech development, Al > H2.
I've got to get to bed, but a couple of quick points:
Me too.
I think you're off here. Data point: San Francisco, which is one of the most 'human scale' cities around, especially in the older three-story Victorian parts. It's also one of the most expensive. Why? Because people want to live there.
SF is actually one of my lest favorite cites. I guess I'm just not trendy or I'm crazy or most likely both. In fact I know I'm not trendy, I'm actually counter-counter-cultural.
Anyway thanks for engaging in a reasonable discussion, instead of the vitriolic ad hominem attacks and evidence free assertions that are often made against people like me in discussions like this.
Exactly right, batteries are too expensive and you charge everywhere. My money is not on lithium tech. It is on NiCad, NiMH, lead acid and most importantly nickel-iron batteries. Fast charging is bad because it means expensive and brittle batteries as well as extreme loads on the power grid. Think about 1000 kW charging. It just does not work. Meanwhile, we have the solution to range anxiety: a biodiesel generator.
How many times do we have to hear this argument? In the absolute worst case scenario (a coal grid), EVs beat gas cars in pollution. In a real scenario, with 10+ percent renewable and nuclear, and most natural gas, EVs kill gas cars in pollution. The amount of pollution produced per unit of electricity is also falling.
Number 3 should read:
3. If you want to be sustainable, the best way to do that is to eliminate, not to reduce. If you use nuclear or solar powerplants to make oil from CO2, you've eliminated oil. If you try to conserve oil by running a huge public transit campaign, then for comparable amounts of effort, you reduce oil consumption by a debatable, small amount.
My argument is this:
1. Improving energy efficiency by relatively small amounts here and there will not really help out on a global scale.
2. Many attempts assumed to reduce energy use by significant factors infact do not, further bolstering the conclusion that energy efficiency is not as important as previously believed.
3. If you want to be sustainable, the best way to do that is to eliminate, not to reduce. If you use nuclear powerplants to make oil from CO2, you've eliminated oil. If you try to conserve oil by running a huge public transit campaign, then for comparable amounts of effort, you reduce oil consumption.
4. People are misguided in assuming that people are going to choose a "human scale" city over a sprawl. My belief is that this will not happen in an open competition. Meanwhile, in comparing energy generation schemes, I estimate that everyone lives in an American suburb. If the energy scheme is not severely constrained in this scenario, then it is a good one.
5. I've been to cities. I've been to sprawls. I liked the sprawls better than the cities. Maybe I'm an exception, but there are probably people who share my preferences.
6. If you really want to save energy, Skype.