Mazda to RG- Hydrogen is coming !!!
11-13-2007, 07:40 PM
#177
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-13-2007, 07:41 PM
#179
11-14-2007, 07:46 PM
#180
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that this thread has taken the a few left turns here is another to bring it back on track.
While I agree with RG on several points, lets peel back the hydrogen fuel onion a bit.
Infrastructure
One thing about Hydrogen is it's relatively easy to produce. No refineries are needed. No deep holes in the ground. Unlike ethanol, it doesn't need to be grown, fermented, distilled and transported. All it takes is some water, a little vinegar or salt, a handful of annodes & cathodes, a tank, and electricity. The kind found in any wall socket. No tanker trucks needed. Not an extraordinary amount of volts either. Consider that in the analysis of building the infrastructure. Yessir, we could actually generate our own commuting fuel to run say 200 miles a day with an overnight fill up at home.
Storage Tank
The idea of compressing hydrogen at 3000 PSI intimidates most people, especially when thet're sitting on it while riding down the road at 100 feet per second. On the other hand there are some pretty good technologies to store hydrogen in an absorbtion mode, but again it takes a fairly heavy and complex (read costly) container. No matter the BTU volume carried will be compromised campared to good old dyno juice. Then again, all alternatives seem to suffer from the same problem. At some point the trade-off of refuling distance vrs fuel cost will probably favor cost.
Safety
Imagine, you're a Fireman responding to an accident a few years from now. Electric cars will no doubt emit toxic fumes if they burn. If not from the batteries, the best fire retardant for the cable insulation are Bromides which when they do burn aren't exactly fresh air to breathe. The lsit of new hazards goes on with every alternative, so to be qualified as a Fireman, you'll probably need a 4 year degree in dealing with hazardous stuff. No matter, the impact of the accidents by drunk drivers will still kill more people then the hazardous materials so the sad (and unfortunate) reality is safety won't be an issue to most, at least those who aren't attorneys.
Cost
One of the best parts of capitalism is in the end cost is what drives the final decision. Hydrogen offers a very attractive long term cost. Look at the Mazda5 Hybrid layout. Electric drive greatly improves efficiency. The rotary offers the best power to weight solution for extended driving recharges.
Hydrogen does indeed offer a great promise. It's too early to say that promise will ever be realized, only time will tell. My hat's tipped to Mazda for taking the risk.
While I agree with RG on several points, lets peel back the hydrogen fuel onion a bit.
Infrastructure
One thing about Hydrogen is it's relatively easy to produce. No refineries are needed. No deep holes in the ground. Unlike ethanol, it doesn't need to be grown, fermented, distilled and transported. All it takes is some water, a little vinegar or salt, a handful of annodes & cathodes, a tank, and electricity. The kind found in any wall socket. No tanker trucks needed. Not an extraordinary amount of volts either. Consider that in the analysis of building the infrastructure. Yessir, we could actually generate our own commuting fuel to run say 200 miles a day with an overnight fill up at home.
Storage Tank
The idea of compressing hydrogen at 3000 PSI intimidates most people, especially when thet're sitting on it while riding down the road at 100 feet per second. On the other hand there are some pretty good technologies to store hydrogen in an absorbtion mode, but again it takes a fairly heavy and complex (read costly) container. No matter the BTU volume carried will be compromised campared to good old dyno juice. Then again, all alternatives seem to suffer from the same problem. At some point the trade-off of refuling distance vrs fuel cost will probably favor cost.
Safety
Imagine, you're a Fireman responding to an accident a few years from now. Electric cars will no doubt emit toxic fumes if they burn. If not from the batteries, the best fire retardant for the cable insulation are Bromides which when they do burn aren't exactly fresh air to breathe. The lsit of new hazards goes on with every alternative, so to be qualified as a Fireman, you'll probably need a 4 year degree in dealing with hazardous stuff. No matter, the impact of the accidents by drunk drivers will still kill more people then the hazardous materials so the sad (and unfortunate) reality is safety won't be an issue to most, at least those who aren't attorneys.
Cost
One of the best parts of capitalism is in the end cost is what drives the final decision. Hydrogen offers a very attractive long term cost. Look at the Mazda5 Hybrid layout. Electric drive greatly improves efficiency. The rotary offers the best power to weight solution for extended driving recharges.
Hydrogen does indeed offer a great promise. It's too early to say that promise will ever be realized, only time will tell. My hat's tipped to Mazda for taking the risk.
11-14-2007, 08:56 PM
#181
Juris Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think Hydrogen will be the fuel of the future coupled with electric cars.
People have the same fears about Hydrogen that people had about gasoline when the automobile came out:
"You want me to drive something on wheels sitting on something that is combustible and could possibly ignite and kill me?"
Hydrogen is no different. Technology and the Economy will drive infrastructure and safety. Gas Stations didn't just magically appear. Infrastructure was grown over time. Energy companies realize this. They are investing in alternative fuels because all it takes is a change in the perception of the American people about fuel and how and where to get it.
If the Economy demands Hydrogen, Hydrogen will be what they get. The almighty dollar speaks to change.
People have the same fears about Hydrogen that people had about gasoline when the automobile came out:
"You want me to drive something on wheels sitting on something that is combustible and could possibly ignite and kill me?"
Hydrogen is no different. Technology and the Economy will drive infrastructure and safety. Gas Stations didn't just magically appear. Infrastructure was grown over time. Energy companies realize this. They are investing in alternative fuels because all it takes is a change in the perception of the American people about fuel and how and where to get it.
If the Economy demands Hydrogen, Hydrogen will be what they get. The almighty dollar speaks to change.
11-15-2007, 09:46 AM
#182
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that this thread has taken the a few left turns here is another to bring it back on track.
While I agree with RG on several points, lets peel back the hydrogen fuel onion a bit.
Infrastructure
One thing about Hydrogen is it's relatively easy to produce. No refineries are needed. No deep holes in the ground. Unlike ethanol, it doesn't need to be grown, fermented, distilled and transported. All it takes is some water, a little vinegar or salt, a handful of annodes & cathodes, a tank, and electricity. The kind found in any wall socket. No tanker trucks needed. Not an extraordinary amount of volts either. Consider that in the analysis of building the infrastructure. Yessir, we could actually generate our own commuting fuel to run say 200 miles a day with an overnight fill up at home.
Storage Tank
The idea of compressing hydrogen at 3000 PSI intimidates most people, especially when thet're sitting on it while riding down the road at 100 feet per second. On the other hand there are some pretty good technologies to store hydrogen in an absorbtion mode, but again it takes a fairly heavy and complex (read costly) container. No matter the BTU volume carried will be compromised campared to good old dyno juice. Then again, all alternatives seem to suffer from the same problem. At some point the trade-off of refuling distance vrs fuel cost will probably favor cost.
Safety
Imagine, you're a Fireman responding to an accident a few years from now. Electric cars will no doubt emit toxic fumes if they burn. If not from the batteries, the best fire retardant for the cable insulation are Bromides which when they do burn aren't exactly fresh air to breathe. The lsit of new hazards goes on with every alternative, so to be qualified as a Fireman, you'll probably need a 4 year degree in dealing with hazardous stuff. No matter, the impact of the accidents by drunk drivers will still kill more people then the hazardous materials so the sad (and unfortunate) reality is safety won't be an issue to most, at least those who aren't attorneys.
Cost
One of the best parts of capitalism is in the end cost is what drives the final decision. Hydrogen offers a very attractive long term cost. Look at the Mazda5 Hybrid layout. Electric drive greatly improves efficiency. The rotary offers the best power to weight solution for extended driving recharges.
Hydrogen does indeed offer a great promise. It's too early to say that promise will ever be realized, only time will tell. My hat's tipped to Mazda for taking the risk.
While I agree with RG on several points, lets peel back the hydrogen fuel onion a bit.
Infrastructure
One thing about Hydrogen is it's relatively easy to produce. No refineries are needed. No deep holes in the ground. Unlike ethanol, it doesn't need to be grown, fermented, distilled and transported. All it takes is some water, a little vinegar or salt, a handful of annodes & cathodes, a tank, and electricity. The kind found in any wall socket. No tanker trucks needed. Not an extraordinary amount of volts either. Consider that in the analysis of building the infrastructure. Yessir, we could actually generate our own commuting fuel to run say 200 miles a day with an overnight fill up at home.
Storage Tank
The idea of compressing hydrogen at 3000 PSI intimidates most people, especially when thet're sitting on it while riding down the road at 100 feet per second. On the other hand there are some pretty good technologies to store hydrogen in an absorbtion mode, but again it takes a fairly heavy and complex (read costly) container. No matter the BTU volume carried will be compromised campared to good old dyno juice. Then again, all alternatives seem to suffer from the same problem. At some point the trade-off of refuling distance vrs fuel cost will probably favor cost.
Safety
Imagine, you're a Fireman responding to an accident a few years from now. Electric cars will no doubt emit toxic fumes if they burn. If not from the batteries, the best fire retardant for the cable insulation are Bromides which when they do burn aren't exactly fresh air to breathe. The lsit of new hazards goes on with every alternative, so to be qualified as a Fireman, you'll probably need a 4 year degree in dealing with hazardous stuff. No matter, the impact of the accidents by drunk drivers will still kill more people then the hazardous materials so the sad (and unfortunate) reality is safety won't be an issue to most, at least those who aren't attorneys.
Cost
One of the best parts of capitalism is in the end cost is what drives the final decision. Hydrogen offers a very attractive long term cost. Look at the Mazda5 Hybrid layout. Electric drive greatly improves efficiency. The rotary offers the best power to weight solution for extended driving recharges.
Hydrogen does indeed offer a great promise. It's too early to say that promise will ever be realized, only time will tell. My hat's tipped to Mazda for taking the risk.
2) 3000 PSI? More like 40,000 PSI, literally. That's if you want a tank that supplies the same range as an equally sized gasoline tank.
3) Popular Mechanics did a study of all the alternate fuel vehicles available, to determine which ones would be the cheapest. They drove them around a bit, and extrapolated that data to get a cost estimate of how expensive it would be to drive from NY to LA. The cheapest was battery electrics, the next cheapest was CNG, and then the third cheapest was diesels. In the middle was gasoline, then getting more expensive was ethanol. Guess which fuel came in dead last?
Also, safety and fires may not be a problem at all with future lithium batteries. A123's batteries are so robust that you can literally drive a nail through one and short it out, adn the most you'll get is a small whiff of smoke. So if the batteries are fire-proof, then I don't know what would burst into flame.
Last edited by BaronVonBigmeat; 11-15-2007 at 09:51 AM.
11-15-2007, 03:47 PM
#183
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually if Hydrogen is produced through electrolysis from a 'clean' source, it might make more sense to produce CNG/Methane from Hydrogen and CO2 and then power cars with the CNG produced (instead of using Hydrogen to power cars directly).
Why?
(Apart from the fact that CNG distribution is here and CNG cars are already available.)
When biomass is converted to Methane up to 55% of that biomass turns to CO2 (instead of Methane). This CO2 then needs to be seperated before Methane (CH4) can be used as fuel.
Instead of separating CO2 and releasing it directly it to the atmosphere, it can be mixed H2. With a catalyzer, H2 together with CO2 will turn into CH4 and H20 and even release a little heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O
This will practically double the amount of CNG/methane produced from a given amount of biomass (without increasing the amount of CO2 produced at the same time).
Why?
(Apart from the fact that CNG distribution is here and CNG cars are already available.)
When biomass is converted to Methane up to 55% of that biomass turns to CO2 (instead of Methane). This CO2 then needs to be seperated before Methane (CH4) can be used as fuel.
Instead of separating CO2 and releasing it directly it to the atmosphere, it can be mixed H2. With a catalyzer, H2 together with CO2 will turn into CH4 and H20 and even release a little heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O
This will practically double the amount of CNG/methane produced from a given amount of biomass (without increasing the amount of CO2 produced at the same time).
Last edited by globi; 11-15-2007 at 04:15 PM.
11-15-2007, 05:17 PM
#184
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If electricity is clean and cheap. Then why don't all cars run on electricity?
________
How to roll a blunt
________
How to roll a blunt
Last edited by Renesis_8; 09-11-2011 at 01:52 PM.
11-15-2007, 07:03 PM
#186
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About a 100 years ago when the automobile was more a novelty then a practicality there were thre choices; gas, electric, steam. Gas won. A century later gas is getting pretty expensive. And it ain't gonna get any cheaper. So here we are today a little wiser and alternatives are worth investigating.
Hydrogen is one of them. Is it the best? Not for everyone. Far too chaotic to say any alternative will be a clear winner. Lots of alternatives show great promise, and we all know promises will be broken. But it's interesting to get opinions on a forum, and what better then a Mazda RX forum after Mazda is ready to unleash the rotary Hydrogen Hybrid Mazda 5?
Its interesting to me anyway.
For the baron, I agree, storage is an issue. More then likely we'll see metal hydirde systems rather then a pressure vessel. I was hoping someone would have mentioned that. Even then they have a ways to go before approaching a simple bucket of gas concept. Figure something like 2 lbs of hydrogen per gallon of gas BTU equivalent. Takes a pretty large bucket even at 3000 PSI.
Is electricity cheaper then gasoline? Yes & no. Yes from a standpoint of operating cost. No from the purchase price.
A123 battery technology is probably the most likely to succeed among the alternatives. The problem is will the average American want to wait 4 hours to recharge between "fuel stops" when they're taking the annual trip to Grandma's house?
Personally I expect to see an evolution in power systems in the following order:
1. Conventional Hybrids
2. Plug-in Hybrids
3. Alternaive fuel Hybrids
We already have the first. Mazda is jumping straight to #3. Will it last? Probably not. But it will make a statement. Is it the right statement? Maybe, maybe not. But consider this; Mazda made a statement with the rotary and more then likely everyone who is reading this has one, and probably really likes it. So show a little faith. Mazda's hybrid isn't for everyone, but I'll bet it hangs around a little longer then Chrysler's turbine car, or GM's first attempt at electric cars.
Hydrogen is one of them. Is it the best? Not for everyone. Far too chaotic to say any alternative will be a clear winner. Lots of alternatives show great promise, and we all know promises will be broken. But it's interesting to get opinions on a forum, and what better then a Mazda RX forum after Mazda is ready to unleash the rotary Hydrogen Hybrid Mazda 5?
Its interesting to me anyway.
For the baron, I agree, storage is an issue. More then likely we'll see metal hydirde systems rather then a pressure vessel. I was hoping someone would have mentioned that. Even then they have a ways to go before approaching a simple bucket of gas concept. Figure something like 2 lbs of hydrogen per gallon of gas BTU equivalent. Takes a pretty large bucket even at 3000 PSI.
Is electricity cheaper then gasoline? Yes & no. Yes from a standpoint of operating cost. No from the purchase price.
A123 battery technology is probably the most likely to succeed among the alternatives. The problem is will the average American want to wait 4 hours to recharge between "fuel stops" when they're taking the annual trip to Grandma's house?
Personally I expect to see an evolution in power systems in the following order:
1. Conventional Hybrids
2. Plug-in Hybrids
3. Alternaive fuel Hybrids
We already have the first. Mazda is jumping straight to #3. Will it last? Probably not. But it will make a statement. Is it the right statement? Maybe, maybe not. But consider this; Mazda made a statement with the rotary and more then likely everyone who is reading this has one, and probably really likes it. So show a little faith. Mazda's hybrid isn't for everyone, but I'll bet it hangs around a little longer then Chrysler's turbine car, or GM's first attempt at electric cars.
11-15-2007, 10:32 PM
#187
About a 100 years ago when the automobile was more a novelty then a practicality there were thre choices; gas, electric, steam. Gas won. A century later gas is getting pretty expensive. And it ain't gonna get any cheaper. So here we are today a little wiser and alternatives are worth investigating.
Hydrogen is one of them. Is it the best? Not for everyone. Far too chaotic to say any alternative will be a clear winner. Lots of alternatives show great promise, and we all know promises will be broken. But it's interesting to get opinions on a forum, and what better then a Mazda RX forum after Mazda is ready to unleash the rotary Hydrogen Hybrid Mazda 5?
Its interesting to me anyway.
For the baron, I agree, storage is an issue. More then likely we'll see metal hydirde systems rather then a pressure vessel. I was hoping someone would have mentioned that. Even then they have a ways to go before approaching a simple bucket of gas concept. Figure something like 2 lbs of hydrogen per gallon of gas BTU equivalent. Takes a pretty large bucket even at 3000 PSI.
Is electricity cheaper then gasoline? Yes & no. Yes from a standpoint of operating cost. No from the purchase price.
A123 battery technology is probably the most likely to succeed among the alternatives. The problem is will the average American want to wait 4 hours to recharge between "fuel stops" when they're taking the annual trip to Grandma's house?
Personally I expect to see an evolution in power systems in the following order:
1. Conventional Hybrids
2. Plug-in Hybrids
3. Alternaive fuel Hybrids
We already have the first. Mazda is jumping straight to #3. Will it last? Probably not. But it will make a statement. Is it the right statement? Maybe, maybe not. But consider this; Mazda made a statement with the rotary and more then likely everyone who is reading this has one, and probably really likes it. So show a little faith. Mazda's hybrid isn't for everyone, but I'll bet it hangs around a little longer then Chrysler's turbine car, or GM's first attempt at electric cars.
Hydrogen is one of them. Is it the best? Not for everyone. Far too chaotic to say any alternative will be a clear winner. Lots of alternatives show great promise, and we all know promises will be broken. But it's interesting to get opinions on a forum, and what better then a Mazda RX forum after Mazda is ready to unleash the rotary Hydrogen Hybrid Mazda 5?
Its interesting to me anyway.
For the baron, I agree, storage is an issue. More then likely we'll see metal hydirde systems rather then a pressure vessel. I was hoping someone would have mentioned that. Even then they have a ways to go before approaching a simple bucket of gas concept. Figure something like 2 lbs of hydrogen per gallon of gas BTU equivalent. Takes a pretty large bucket even at 3000 PSI.
Is electricity cheaper then gasoline? Yes & no. Yes from a standpoint of operating cost. No from the purchase price.
A123 battery technology is probably the most likely to succeed among the alternatives. The problem is will the average American want to wait 4 hours to recharge between "fuel stops" when they're taking the annual trip to Grandma's house?
Personally I expect to see an evolution in power systems in the following order:
1. Conventional Hybrids
2. Plug-in Hybrids
3. Alternaive fuel Hybrids
We already have the first. Mazda is jumping straight to #3. Will it last? Probably not. But it will make a statement. Is it the right statement? Maybe, maybe not. But consider this; Mazda made a statement with the rotary and more then likely everyone who is reading this has one, and probably really likes it. So show a little faith. Mazda's hybrid isn't for everyone, but I'll bet it hangs around a little longer then Chrysler's turbine car, or GM's first attempt at electric cars.
Alternative fuel hybrids? Like what, thats pretty much what we are arguing about. I still go with hydrocarbons as our future. Coal liquidification will be our next energy source. Read my previous posts if you dunno what that is.
11-15-2007, 10:33 PM
#188
11-16-2007, 12:31 AM
#189
that's a neat idea, except you'd know immediately if you've just taken a battery that's been used too much. and it would suck if you've bought a brand new car + battery, took it for a drive and had to exchange it for a battery that's long overdue to be recycled.
11-16-2007, 07:47 AM
#190
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin
Posts: 2,643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uhh, they trying to develop stations where you dump your whole battery pack and get a new one, they recharge it and give it to someone else and take their battery.
Alternative fuel hybrids? Like what, thats pretty much what we are arguing about. I still go with hydrocarbons as our future. Coal liquidification will be our next energy source. Read my previous posts if you dunno what that is.
Alternative fuel hybrids? Like what, thats pretty much what we are arguing about. I still go with hydrocarbons as our future. Coal liquidification will be our next energy source. Read my previous posts if you dunno what that is.
11-16-2007, 10:29 AM
#191
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uhh, they trying to develop stations where you dump your whole battery pack and get a new one, they recharge it and give it to someone else and take their battery.
Alternative fuel hybrids? Like what, thats pretty much what we are arguing about. I still go with hydrocarbons as our future. Coal liquidification will be our next energy source. Read my previous posts if you dunno what that is.
Alternative fuel hybrids? Like what, thats pretty much what we are arguing about. I still go with hydrocarbons as our future. Coal liquidification will be our next energy source. Read my previous posts if you dunno what that is.
No doubt hydrocarbons will be very much a sustained part of the future. I agree that coal liquifaction is an up & coming technology. Last summer I had the opportunity to visit the Shenhua plant in Baotou China.
My day job is a consultant for Electric Drive systems used on Mining Trucks. That might explain my interest in Electric Drive technology with Hybrids. There is no doubt in my mind that Electric Drive is the future for transportation. Where the electricity comes from is yet to be determined. So when I see a company like Mazda dive in with bleeding edge technology I find it a lot more fascinating then "how much boost will an RX8 stand up to". We all have our quirks.
11-16-2007, 11:52 AM
#192
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, Plug-In hybrids don't need battery pack replacements and can still get 200 mpg (gasoline).
Also, my cell phone takes much more time to charge its batteries than it takes time to fill up the gasoline tank of my car. Still, up to this point I'have never needed a battery pack replacement for my cell phone.
Why there would be an urgent need for a battery pack replacement even if I had a pure electric car is not clear to me.
Generating the electricity from renewable sources to power electric cars is not the issue - considering the fact that even the area of a parking spot is enough to generate the electric needed to drive about 50 miles a day.
And again thinfilm based photovoltaics is non-toxic. A thinfilm photovoltaic factory doesn't release any toxic waste or gases to the enviroment nor does it require huge amounts of energy. Its manufacturing process is comparable to the manufacturing process of flat screens.
www.oerlikon.com/solar
I mention photovoltaics because it is currently the most expensive renewable electricity. Driving a car on this electricity is surprisingly still less expensive than driving a car on gasoline (not considering the initial costs of the car).
Also, my cell phone takes much more time to charge its batteries than it takes time to fill up the gasoline tank of my car. Still, up to this point I'have never needed a battery pack replacement for my cell phone.
Why there would be an urgent need for a battery pack replacement even if I had a pure electric car is not clear to me.
Generating the electricity from renewable sources to power electric cars is not the issue - considering the fact that even the area of a parking spot is enough to generate the electric needed to drive about 50 miles a day.
And again thinfilm based photovoltaics is non-toxic. A thinfilm photovoltaic factory doesn't release any toxic waste or gases to the enviroment nor does it require huge amounts of energy. Its manufacturing process is comparable to the manufacturing process of flat screens.
www.oerlikon.com/solar
I mention photovoltaics because it is currently the most expensive renewable electricity. Driving a car on this electricity is surprisingly still less expensive than driving a car on gasoline (not considering the initial costs of the car).
11-16-2007, 12:29 PM
#193
Registered User
You guys might like to check out the AIR CAR!
http://www.theaircar.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
http://www.theaircar.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
11-16-2007, 01:06 PM
#195
Registered User
Yeah but if you read and watch the links I sent you will see that a hybrid of compressed air/petro can get you from California to New York on a single tank of fuel!
11-16-2007, 01:21 PM
#196
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is mainly because the car is light and has very little frictional losses.
Assuming you have a pressurized air tank with 4000 psi and a volume of 30 gallons, you'd end up with an energy content of a few MJ.
In comparison: One gallon of gasoline contains over 100 MJ.
An air-motor is more efficient, but not this much.
I have to admit, that this little airmotor http://www.engineair.com.au/index.htm is neat though and apparently seems to have a pretty high power to weight ratio.
Assuming you have a pressurized air tank with 4000 psi and a volume of 30 gallons, you'd end up with an energy content of a few MJ.
In comparison: One gallon of gasoline contains over 100 MJ.
An air-motor is more efficient, but not this much.
I have to admit, that this little airmotor http://www.engineair.com.au/index.htm is neat though and apparently seems to have a pretty high power to weight ratio.
11-16-2007, 01:42 PM
#197
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I have to drive an environmentally sound vehicle, I'd still like to have some fun,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wid6H...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wid6H...eature=related
11-16-2007, 02:11 PM
#198
Battery pack replacements are one possible long term solution. The operative is long term.
No doubt hydrocarbons will be very much a sustained part of the future. I agree that coal liquifaction is an up & coming technology. Last summer I had the opportunity to visit the Shenhua plant in Baotou China.
My day job is a consultant for Electric Drive systems used on Mining Trucks. That might explain my interest in Electric Drive technology with Hybrids. There is no doubt in my mind that Electric Drive is the future for transportation. Where the electricity comes from is yet to be determined. So when I see a company like Mazda dive in with bleeding edge technology I find it a lot more fascinating then "how much boost will an RX8 stand up to". We all have our quirks.
No doubt hydrocarbons will be very much a sustained part of the future. I agree that coal liquifaction is an up & coming technology. Last summer I had the opportunity to visit the Shenhua plant in Baotou China.
My day job is a consultant for Electric Drive systems used on Mining Trucks. That might explain my interest in Electric Drive technology with Hybrids. There is no doubt in my mind that Electric Drive is the future for transportation. Where the electricity comes from is yet to be determined. So when I see a company like Mazda dive in with bleeding edge technology I find it a lot more fascinating then "how much boost will an RX8 stand up to". We all have our quirks.
11-16-2007, 02:18 PM
#199
Registered User
I think what he meant by that is a technology that is already in place but will be brought to the forefront in todays society instead of taking a seat on the backburner.
11-16-2007, 06:12 PM
#200
I got nothing good to say
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tysons Corner, VA
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I have to drive an environmentally sound vehicle, I'd still like to have some fun,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wid6H...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wid6H...eature=related