kartweb

I believe the technology may be in place for Lithium Ion, next comes the economy of scale.

My bet is Plug In Hybrids begin to ramp up by 2010 making a small yet efficient powerplant as a back up charge system all the more important.

In a free market 3 things will determine the outcome; Cost, cost amd cost.

Initial capital cost.
Operating cost.
Alternative cost.

We have every reason to believe gas will reach $4-5 a gallon by 2010, maybe more if we decide to invade Iran.

chetrickerman

but then the problem with electric cars is that we need a clean way to generate the energy at powerplants without using fossil fuels, cause we still rely on those a lot

globi

Yes, but there are solutions out there and even clean electricity is already less expensive than gasoline.

Windenergy is already below 10 cents/kWh.
Solarthermal is in the range of 20 cents/kWh.
These guys claim, they can even reach 10 cents/kWh with solarthermal http://www.ausra.com/ (power the entire US with a giant plant in the Nevada desert).

Assuming you were to pay 20 cents / kWh for your electricity.

An electric driven Tesla roadster requires 0.176 Wh / mile. So driving 300 miles would require 53 kWh and cost $10.6 at 20 cents/kWh.

Even if you were to place more costly photovoltaics directly on your roof the price might be double that, so 300 miles would cost $21.2.

The space available on a single parking space covered with photovoltaics would produce over 10 kWh per day on average (in California) - enough to drive 60 miles a day.

Thinfilm photovoltaics might eventually reduce costs of solar power to a level that any house owner can independently produce the power needed to power their car and home.
http://www.oerlikon.com/solar
http://www.appliedmaterials.com/news..._strategy.html

chetrickerman

well i think geothermal would be the best cause the energy is always there. the wind doesnt always blow and the sun doesnt always shine

refugeefrompistons

o0o, that solar "technology". I think it has much potential because its so simplistic and very plain straight forward. Solar panels? uh-huh... Too expensive and toxic to produce. But that way of capturing solar energy seems hard to do on a massive scale. And costly photovoltaics would probably cost more, the cost of producing with silicon sheets and the manufacturing is outrageously expensive. Would probably costs around $30 but then the initial cost of the panels would net a return after a couple decades.

j_tso

in the 1970s when V8 Camaros had 150hp. And just like then, there'll be another dive in power when the next fuel crunch hits.

The key is to update everything, namely getting rid of fossil fueled power plants. That'll pave the way for either battery powered or hydrogen generation. If American companies would quit looking towards the next quarter and instead into decades we'd be better off.

I like the H-RE because it can help bridge the infrastructure gap with its duel fuel ability.

rotarygod

Who cares if it can't rev to 10000 rpm? It makes more power than gasoline and at lower rpms. That means less stress on rotating parts. Diesel engines can be made to hit 6000 rpms now anyways which is plenty high for any street car. They can also be made light as new ones are starting to be made out of aluminum. Diesel fuel burns slower which means the flame front is easier to control but in addition as you've tried to argue with hydrogen, diesel fuel has more energy potential than gasoline. rpm limits are almost irrelevant too. The only thing that matters is average power through the usable powerband and diesel wins over gasoline. I'm not sure why you don't see this. Don't tell Audi this though. They couldn't win on the track if they knew!

Both fuels will absolutely kick hydrogen's *** all day long in this department. It's not even close. It would actually be a joke to even try. Hydrogen is nice on paper and in our dreams but sadly it is impossible to make it a viable replacement in an internal combustion engine. Use it to store energy to be used in electic power generation but don't use it as a gasoline replacement in engines. It doesn't work good. There is not one single credible source to prove otherwise. It plains sucks when used that way.

When you figure out a way to instantly separate hydrogen and oxygen into their gaseous states from water as it's being injected into an engine and then light it, then you've got a power source that is worth looking at as any water source would be a fuel supply. There has been claims that it has been done but coincedentally enough those people have either died or not gone public for fear of death. At least this is what conspiracy theorists want you to think. One such gentleman that is pushing this also claims that the WTC towers were imploded by the government so that doesn't lend much credibility to the claim. That would be a worthwhile exploit to pursue though.

Then we've got the last issue. I don't care who finds the next big fuel or makes some crazy breakthough. One thing will always remain a constant. It will always stay expensive for us to drive our cars! What do you think governments would do if we no longer used gasoline? They'd heavily tax whatever fuel we were using. What if we could use water? They can't tax that. They'd tax use per mile driven or make every road a tollway. It will never be cheap to drive.

Since we know financial reasons are not valid reasons to pursue alt. fuel sources, it really comes down to 2 things. The most important reason in my opinion is to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil. That outweighs ANY other reason! Don't give the middle east any more money and no more reason to have to interact with the outside world. The second benefit is emissions. I don't believe global warming is manmade (because it's not and there is no credible evidence to suggest it is) but I do believe we should pollute less. Please don't start a global warming debate here. I'll close it anyways. Less pollution is a benefit to our lives. Pollution and no middle east are the real driving forces behind alternative fuels. It has nothing to do with driving cheaper. That will never happen. Enjoy it where it is. It can only get more expensive. When we can get these 2 things to happen without losing performance, which we can't do with hydrogen, then you'll know we got it right. Too bad we won't see this in any of our lifetimes!

chetrickerman

no f*cking around with that

DemonRX-8

A sad joke at our expense: Bush's Hydrogen Initiative

chetrickerman

all i read was blah blah, i want to thank you, and you, and blah blah

DemonRX-8

"So I'm asking Congress to spend $1.2 billion on a new national commitment to take hydrogen fuel cell cars from the laboratory to the showroom."

chetrickerman

And why hasnt he been assasinated yet?

nmarz77

Unfortunately the early '70s was pretty much the end of the muscle car era due to new emmissions requirements and the governments crunch on fuel consumption. Your Camaro you reference was a 1975 model and by then the crunch was full on and it is technically not considered a "Muscle Car" anymore at that point due to it's low hp numbers......but don't frett because you can still technicaly call it a pony car. But the the muscle cars before the early 1970's had no problem at all developing power, some in excess of 450hp. Maybe I should restate my question.......when did muscle cars ever have problems making high HP numbers due to lack of early combustion engine technology? The numbers were always there, it was the economy and government regulations that crushed them for a while.

DemonRX-8

I'm going with Chris Rock on that one . . . bullets are too valuable Well, he said that bullet's should be $5000 each, but even at current prices they're too valuable!!

zoom44

very soon you will be able to drive from the california/mexico border all the way to the olympics in canada on a "hydrogen highway and gm and honda both have in home hydrogen fueling devices
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2007/04...spans-800.html
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog/...-hydrogen.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...hydrogen_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-equinox_N.htm

http://www.newsday.com/technology/ny...,6531690.story

doubled the efficiency and the storage is clearly there


there were also drop tests etc mentioned in the paper article



hydrogen costs the same to fill up now as gasoline. that was in an article i read yesterday cant find the online link right now


but they are getting there. in order to get there SOMEONE has to actually work on them. imagine if everyone when otto was making hios first couple engines said "eh its not really there." or for that matter said that about anything- might as well not do anythign innovative


we produce huge amounts of hydrogen in this country already. allot of it is made in the petroleum industry to remove sulfur from gasoline. lessen the amount of gasoline we use and that H can be moved intousage AS fuel too.

rotarygod

You'd leard something if you read the words. They are all true. When hydrogen is finally proven as the joke that it is, you'll see then. It will NEVER get wide distribution and will NEVER be a widely accepted fuel. I already said what it will take to make it worth using and that is instant conversion from water (with O2) in real time. If you can't do that, you can't make it a viable alternative.

nmarz77

There are already cars running on instantly converted hydrogen from water. BUT there is NO way in hell that the government will allow auto manufacturers to use this technology because there is no way to tax it unless they put a major tax on water itself. There is however one possible way for them to tax it and that is this.......there needs to be an electrolite introduced into the water for the current to easily travel through it to make the hydrogen, so refueling stations could provide this premixed water solution for vehicles. The only problem is that it's wayyyy to easy to make it yourself and a gallon of water makes a sh*t load of hydrogen gas so they would not be selling as much "fuel" as they used to! There's no doubt that it's way safer to have a small generator under the hood making hydrogen as needed on demand than to have a pressurized tank full of it sitting in the back of the car, but oh well, big brother wants his money.

rotarygod

It all goes back to money. It really has nothing to do with the environment. It's all about money. We will never be efficient as long as decisions are based on money.

chetrickerman

the government

democracy my ***, we dont even elect our own president

nmarz77

Unfortunately the world as we know it revolves around money. Hopefully one day in a galaxy far far away money will be a thing of the past.

½mv²

While chemestry was never one of my strong points, we've proven that we have the technology to rip molecular structures apart as well as rebuild them. Hell, isn't that where we get our Hydrogen fuel - just water (H2O) with the Oxygen removed from it?

Now I did no research on this; it was just a thought that crossed through my head while reading this debate; so feel free to teach me where my idealism doesn't work in the real world...


Is there nothing that can be added to regular gasoline - either before or after it's ignited - to change what the exhaust is comprised of? Someone earlier said that gasoline emitions are X parts water, Y parts poison ****. Well, is there something that can be bound to gasoline to turn those Y parts poison **** into something not poisonous?
Actually, isn't that what our catylitic converters are for? Why are we looking for alternative fuels then? Clearly the problem doesn't lie with our fuels - it's our cats that are the problem! Why aren't the scientists looking for more effective ways to alter the emissions before they leave the car? Can't we make more efficent cats? Or perhaps cats are the wrong way to go...

...let's say there exists a special gas mixture A, that when mixed with a CONTROLLED amount of ignited gasoline, results in X parts water, 0 parts poison ****, and Y parts misc non-toxic gases. It wouldn't require some massive infrastructure change, either. Just fill up 2 tanks of gas while you're at the station. 15 gallons of premium and 3 gallons of mixture A, please!
I realize that it's not the best idea ever, but it makes more sense than setting some arbitrary date in the future for all automotive companies to meet so that our make-shift brand-new ethanol/hydrogen/whatever infrastructure can pathetically hope to make a difference!

Also, in a day & age where we can clone sheep, regrow skin for burn victims, design working nano-computer prototypes, and build indoor ski slopes in the middle of the desert, how hard could it be to create synthetic gasoline? Do we REALLY need oil? I don't get that at all. Oil does not contain some super-rare molecules in it, so why do we really need it? As far as my limited knowledge of chemistry tells me combustion works like so:

Substance A + combustion = Substance B + water

Substance B is the exhaust fumes that go up into our atmosphere. We've been burning this **** for how long now? Everything we need to 'make' oil can be found in a deep breath. I mean, we have the technology to rip water apart, right? That's what electrolosis is, no? That's how we get Hydrogen, correct? How could ripping air apart be any harder?
I remember learning something in 5th grade about where fossil fuels come from. Something like dead animals, swaps, plants, and other stuff gets trapped underground and is compressed for many many years, eventually becoming coal or oil or something like that. Have we as a species not developed the technology to crush stuff? How is that even possible? We can break the sound barrier, travel into outer space for prolonged periods of time, use magnets to launch a pice of metal through 10 inches of titanium tank armor plating, and calculate the first million digits of Pi in less than a minute on our home computers... but we can't apply large amounts of pressure to something??


Either my knowledge of chemistry & biology is severely lacking, or people just like doing things the hard way.

StealthTL

iTrader: (1)

Chickenman - please keep the discussion civil (and non-political) or you will be censured.

S

nmarz77

If you're really interested in this stuff(splitting water and turning air into plasma), go a step further and research GEET and Paul Pantone. Not only did he invent some crazy sh*t but the government also layed the smack down on him and he has been labeled as a "crazy" and trapped in a mental institution to try and keep the technology a secret from the public. They say he is "crazy" because of his inventions and that they don't work, but you will find clear as day that they in fact to and there are running models of them. Not to mention plans you can get for free and/or buy to make them. If you want the full story go to www.geetfriends.com and help the poor guy out.

j_tso

Okay, I see what you mean. However, muscle cars came after the combustion engine was developed. You'd have to go into 1920s where a 3 liter Bentley that only made 100hp and a 7 liter Mercedes made ~300 hp (and those were race cars). Where does 7 liters get you now? Don't forget, everybody was developing the gasoline engine. Today, not only are these alternate engines in their infancy, but few companies are working on the same type. there's progress to be made.

chetrickerman

my bad, will do