CAFE and other government restrictions on diesel emissions doesn't help the process. It's funny they want it both ways.
CAFE and other government restrictions on diesel emissions doesn't help the process. It's funny they want it both ways.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
The diesels are coming...
The Accord diesel should be here soon, VW's bringing diesels back to the US (Yeah I agree they're crap cars, I've owned 2 VW diesels), Ford has some <2L engines being developed and all of the big 3 have promised diesels in 1/2 ton trucks by 2010 (Ford is positioned to be the first with an in house effort-a 4.4L V8 in 08'-09')
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
The hard part isn't really the cars though...people replace their cars often enough, and its not like a diesel engine is new technology or something. Biodiesel is great because it doesn't require a new distribution network. Thats the main problem with hydrogen...the entire pipeline network throughout the united states...which has been built over decades would have to be replaced. Biodiesel can just be pumped through the existing system. The diesel car thing is a political problem, just like the corn lobby pushing us down the pointless ethanol path is.
There is a sea algae that has an extremely high yield, and can be grown in tanks of dirty sea water pumped into a desert in the American southwest. Its not competing with our food sources or water sources, and isn't horribly inefficient to produce. But it doesn't have a lobby group since an industry doesn't exist for it.
The algae method is promising, but there is still a lot to be researched to be as efficient as possible. Also the three main competing companies are slowing down the process with trying to patent everything and suing each other. All comes down to money.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,677
- 46,395
- 136
No surprises in the article, people have known corn is a terrible ethanol feedstock for years. Unfortunately the farm/agri-business lobby is extraordinarily powerful. Eventually corn will fall into disuse for ethanol in favor of better feedstocks, unfortunately its going to take a while from the looks of things.
Only when you get to discussing the much higher yield crops and cellulosic do things get interesting and much more viable.
Only when you get to discussing the much higher yield crops and cellulosic do things get interesting and much more viable.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Prairie Grass would be a viable alternative with supposedly similar yield to sugar cane. Ethanol is a great idea, it's just not ready for prime time yet and the problems with it are the same problems that always come from governmental mandates. They need to stop worrying about it at a governmental level and let the market drive what we ultimately do.
ZV
The Boston Dangler
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2005
- 14,647
- 2
- 0
i figure 99% of things that say "green" on them, or have a little green leaf badge, are total BS. ethanol and recycling fall into that 99%
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
You forgot one other thing, they need to be able to be fully recharged in under 5 minutes. Range per charge is only part of the equation.
ZV
Gillbot
Lifer
- Jan 11, 2001
- 28,830
- 17
- 81
As long as it has a ~300 mile range and can recharge overnight, i'd be happy. Most would never use the full capacity in a day anyway so overnight charging should be more than sufficient. Heck, depending on the charge time, it would be feasible to drive it a hundred miles to work, let it recharge while working and drive it home. If that were the case a simple 100-150 mile range would be good as well but that opens the "where can I recharge it" debate as your employer may not want to pay for you plugging your car in all the time. Not to mention if you have a large amount of employees doing the same.
EDIT> the only reason I would prefer a ~300 mile range is so it could be taken on a decent road trip without having to stop to recharge. Finding a recharge spot may not be as easy as finding a gas station, not to mention the wait time for it to recharge.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
300 miles is not even the beginning of a "decent road trip". The last road trip I was on covered approximately 3,500 miles in one week. A car that takes hours to "refuel" is essentially useless to me. A "decent road trip" can put 800 miles behind a car in one day. I'll do that 3 or 4 times a year. And before you say "that's still only 3 or 4 times a year", please explain why I (and others like me) should have to give up those trips or buy an additional vehicle (at a considerable expense) to allow us to have those trips.
A car that cannot be refueled in 5-10 minutes isn't practical to me and it never will be unless it has a range of about 1,000 miles between charges and can be fully charged from empty in about 4 hours.
ZV
Gillbot
Lifer
- Jan 11, 2001
- 28,830
- 17
- 81
Which is why I said I would be happy with it.
I understand your point though, electric cars just aren't practical to many. But for me, most miles my wife accrues are all local city miles so it would work well for her. And at ~300 miles per charge, that would get us to most locations we go to anyway. I'd still probably need a gas vehicle for work so any longer trips we'd use that anyway.
Cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel at 10% mixed is a very good idea.
Gives a higher octaine rating for turbo cars and replaces natural gas for the anti-knock agent which is where engines will have to go to become more efficient. Its good as a mix with diesel as well as it lubricates the engine. Both technologies will have to exist and eventually in hybrids over the next 10-20 yrs
I used to think algae biodiesel was the long term solution, but it isn't.
So Corn ethanol isn't the best but it moves us in the right direction for the short term.
Electric cars will be ultimately the long term solution and they are making batteries that can be charged in as little as 10 minutes.
Hopefully we transition before fuel shortages become the norm instead of the exception.
Gives a higher octaine rating for turbo cars and replaces natural gas for the anti-knock agent which is where engines will have to go to become more efficient. Its good as a mix with diesel as well as it lubricates the engine. Both technologies will have to exist and eventually in hybrids over the next 10-20 yrs
I used to think algae biodiesel was the long term solution, but it isn't.
So Corn ethanol isn't the best but it moves us in the right direction for the short term.
Electric cars will be ultimately the long term solution and they are making batteries that can be charged in as little as 10 minutes.
Hopefully we transition before fuel shortages become the norm instead of the exception.
Originally posted by: Gillbot
Which is why I said I would be happy with it.
I understand your point though, electric cars just aren't practical to many. But for me, most miles my wife accrues are all local city miles so it would work well for her. And at ~300 miles per charge, that would get us to most locations we go to anyway. I'd still probably need a gas vehicle for work so any longer trips we'd use that anyway.
you also have to remember, where would a lot of people plug in?
plugging in can be done at any current gas station for the new type quick charge batteries.
"And that?s only half of the savings story - the maintenance profile of battery electric vehicles is 25% of the most durable internal combustion configurations. How can that be? Well, for openers, the motor has only one moving part.
And then there?s no:
- Transmission to flush or fluid to change
- Cooling system to flush or fluid to change
- Lubrication system or oil & filter to change
- Ignition system to tune or air filter and spark plugs to change
- Exhaust system to rust out or EGR components to maintain
- Fan or fan belts or timing belts to replace
- Front break wear (regenerative breaking instead)"
http://www.energybulletin.net/31344.html
Lack of a good battery and the complexities of a good gasoline engine and transmission have been a great barrier to competition for automobile manufacturers. Once you eliminate that with the simplicity of electric systems any company that makes fridges can make a car.
"And that?s only half of the savings story - the maintenance profile of battery electric vehicles is 25% of the most durable internal combustion configurations. How can that be? Well, for openers, the motor has only one moving part.
And then there?s no:
- Transmission to flush or fluid to change
- Cooling system to flush or fluid to change
- Lubrication system or oil & filter to change
- Ignition system to tune or air filter and spark plugs to change
- Exhaust system to rust out or EGR components to maintain
- Fan or fan belts or timing belts to replace
- Front break wear (regenerative breaking instead)"
http://www.energybulletin.net/31344.html
Lack of a good battery and the complexities of a good gasoline engine and transmission have been a great barrier to competition for automobile manufacturers. Once you eliminate that with the simplicity of electric systems any company that makes fridges can make a car.
They don't grow all of their needs, but they're able to grow enough to fill the gap with their own oil production. You do have to remember that they have a bit over 100 million people less than us, as well as considerably less people driving cars -- both actual numbers and proportionately.
desy, im sorry, i will give an example as to why having just a single electric motor is not such a great idea, first it has to spin at extremely high rpms if its going to make the vehicle move without a transmission, and that takes a toll on bearings/bushings and consumes alot of power to begin with. 130 miles to a charge isnt even a good option, i would barily be able to get around where i used to work, without worrying about killing the battery, especially in stop and go traffic where it would be far worse.(think regular miles to the gallon city is less than highway because of this) so imagine it would probly down to maybe 100 miles if your lucky.
second, the batteries used in those systems, are going to be extremely expensive, if they are LIPO, they hold the best amount of power but are expensive comaired to a regular piston engine. And are expensive to replace as well. A decent rc car LIPO battery, with only 5000-7000mAh is easily 100 dollars, think on a massive scale where it takes up part of your trunk....and then add the weight and you do have to cool these motors, heatsink with fan or water cooling, one or the other it will have to happen.
Third, the motors themselves, are expensive as well, look at a good example of RC cars. look how much a small motor of that size is, they run easily into the 300 dollar range, those motors are in exess of 1,000 easily for the motor alone. And a very high quality, is probly worth the value of a regular combustion engine.(http://www2.towerhobbies.com/c...ti0001p?&I=LXRLG4&P=0) The ESC which regulates voltage in and out of the motor(its part of that) would also be required, but on a much greater scale since it would be handling a greater amount of voltage and amps would increase the cost even more.
you also forgot to have this in your post.
"One of the many problems: world-wide, much electricity will continue to be generated from coal (the economics are just too compelling to do otherwise). Electrifying the car fleet will just increase the demand for electricity, and hence the burning of coal and CO2 emissions. This is especially the case in China with its rapid growth in car ownership."
this would increase CO2 emissions greater than vehicles. not a very good if your trying to stop it. it would also increase the need for more power plants, which increases it further.
sorry, but thats not a good, alternative to regular combustion engines, besides, you know that only 18% of all greenhouse gases are produced through vehicles? The BIGGEST producer, is industry not automotive. So if you really wanna start getting rid of greenhouse gasses, its the industry that needs to clean up its act before anyone else does. I'm not saying starting with automotive production is bad, its a start, thats all it is.
"is it arrogance to think we can change the environment, or is it arrogance that makes us think we are changing the environment"
with that said, forest fires, create co2, animals naturally create methane and it also has an even greater warming rate than CO2, does that mean we should kill off livestock? hardly. im no expert, i just like to reasearch anything before i go off on a tangent and say things that i know nothing about.
But believing the world will stay the same is only what we would like to believe, nothing stays the same, we like to keep things the same. its called comfort, you feel comfortable doing the same routines over and over again. we are creatures of habit weather you like it or not. you drive the same route to wherever you want to go every day, over and over again. you wake up at the same time, every day, because you have become used to it. its the same reason why we are continually changing tactics over here, because if we become used to doing things repeatedly, they will as well and then things go downhill. the world is alot bigger than we would like to believe. Just because you can travel half way across the world in a day, doesnt mean its small. solar panels are not a good way of getting energy as well, think of how large a solar farm has to be to power even a small city, now make it 20x larger for larger cities, and same with windmill farms, and then think of birds, they would begin to run into those and, well, die. Bhere goes the bird population and then here come the instects eating the farmlands, and you cant dam up every single river to power cities because that would cause flooding there goes viable land that we can use for other things. The methods of power things we have now arent going to work, we have to design new ways of powering everything.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
edit: the reason i stated all of this is because it all comes down to this, the reason we're going to alternative fuels is because we think we're heating the earth up. But it cant be proven, just like cancer cant be linked to tobacco(not cigarettes/snuff). i am neither with fuel companies nor against them. here's an example, though anything before 500yrs is probly pure speculation.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
"Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."
edit: reading some of the information from this site, as in "more co2 is benefital" seems to me like foolishness. they also consider sun activity and the tilt of the earth, which most places stating that global warming occurs, dont.(just something interesting i noticed)
second, the batteries used in those systems, are going to be extremely expensive, if they are LIPO, they hold the best amount of power but are expensive comaired to a regular piston engine. And are expensive to replace as well. A decent rc car LIPO battery, with only 5000-7000mAh is easily 100 dollars, think on a massive scale where it takes up part of your trunk....and then add the weight and you do have to cool these motors, heatsink with fan or water cooling, one or the other it will have to happen.
Third, the motors themselves, are expensive as well, look at a good example of RC cars. look how much a small motor of that size is, they run easily into the 300 dollar range, those motors are in exess of 1,000 easily for the motor alone. And a very high quality, is probly worth the value of a regular combustion engine.(http://www2.towerhobbies.com/c...ti0001p?&I=LXRLG4&P=0) The ESC which regulates voltage in and out of the motor(its part of that) would also be required, but on a much greater scale since it would be handling a greater amount of voltage and amps would increase the cost even more.
you also forgot to have this in your post.
"One of the many problems: world-wide, much electricity will continue to be generated from coal (the economics are just too compelling to do otherwise). Electrifying the car fleet will just increase the demand for electricity, and hence the burning of coal and CO2 emissions. This is especially the case in China with its rapid growth in car ownership."
this would increase CO2 emissions greater than vehicles. not a very good if your trying to stop it. it would also increase the need for more power plants, which increases it further.
sorry, but thats not a good, alternative to regular combustion engines, besides, you know that only 18% of all greenhouse gases are produced through vehicles? The BIGGEST producer, is industry not automotive. So if you really wanna start getting rid of greenhouse gasses, its the industry that needs to clean up its act before anyone else does. I'm not saying starting with automotive production is bad, its a start, thats all it is.
"is it arrogance to think we can change the environment, or is it arrogance that makes us think we are changing the environment"
with that said, forest fires, create co2, animals naturally create methane and it also has an even greater warming rate than CO2, does that mean we should kill off livestock? hardly. im no expert, i just like to reasearch anything before i go off on a tangent and say things that i know nothing about.
But believing the world will stay the same is only what we would like to believe, nothing stays the same, we like to keep things the same. its called comfort, you feel comfortable doing the same routines over and over again. we are creatures of habit weather you like it or not. you drive the same route to wherever you want to go every day, over and over again. you wake up at the same time, every day, because you have become used to it. its the same reason why we are continually changing tactics over here, because if we become used to doing things repeatedly, they will as well and then things go downhill. the world is alot bigger than we would like to believe. Just because you can travel half way across the world in a day, doesnt mean its small. solar panels are not a good way of getting energy as well, think of how large a solar farm has to be to power even a small city, now make it 20x larger for larger cities, and same with windmill farms, and then think of birds, they would begin to run into those and, well, die. Bhere goes the bird population and then here come the instects eating the farmlands, and you cant dam up every single river to power cities because that would cause flooding there goes viable land that we can use for other things. The methods of power things we have now arent going to work, we have to design new ways of powering everything.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
edit: the reason i stated all of this is because it all comes down to this, the reason we're going to alternative fuels is because we think we're heating the earth up. But it cant be proven, just like cancer cant be linked to tobacco(not cigarettes/snuff). i am neither with fuel companies nor against them. here's an example, though anything before 500yrs is probly pure speculation.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
"Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."
edit: reading some of the information from this site, as in "more co2 is benefital" seems to me like foolishness. they also consider sun activity and the tilt of the earth, which most places stating that global warming occurs, dont.(just something interesting i noticed)
SWEEET a debate!!
Electric motors
You do know trains have been diesel electric for decades right? and the high speed euro trains are electric? Using an electric motor for propulsion is not new and you can't compare hobby RC motors to automotive motors produced in the millions.
An alternator is a much bigger motor than an RC one and I can get that for $50.
There are many versions of electric cars some where they put motors direct drive on each wheel. I have no worries about electric motors to propel a car.
Batteries
So many new battery technologies exist or emerging that it won't be a problem in a decade which is why I put the timeline on good ole ethanol biodiesel as a stop gap for the next 10-20 yrs. Your thinking is all about today where I'm projecting for the future, you know a gas tank weighs a couple hundred pounds as well when its full and electric motors weigh a lot less than a IC engine and systems.
Batteries are the only hurdle left to viable electric cars.
Greenhouse gas emmisions.
Electric motors are about 80% effecient IC engines 30-40% so wheather the electricity comes from coal or not isn't a big deal considering the large gains in effeciency.
http://www.theautochannel.com/...2006/12/11/031109.html
"If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics."
To power all these vehicles today you wouldn't have to build even one more electric plant due to spare capacity in the system once you get rid of light pollution which is wasting about 20% of a plants total generating capacity. Now add lighting effciency and conservation and you come out way ahead.
More and more large scale electrical generation will be coming from renewables really clobbering GH gas emmisions.
Personally I don't worry about GH gases, I come at this from the angle of peak oil. I do worry about replacing liquid fuel as our means of transport because its really difficult to replicate that much stored energy in a form that has so much portability.
The reason we are moving to bio-fuels is becoming less dependant on foreign oil creating a huge trade deficit. The GH gas is a political plus and good for spin not the reason for the push
Electric motors
You do know trains have been diesel electric for decades right? and the high speed euro trains are electric? Using an electric motor for propulsion is not new and you can't compare hobby RC motors to automotive motors produced in the millions.
An alternator is a much bigger motor than an RC one and I can get that for $50.
There are many versions of electric cars some where they put motors direct drive on each wheel. I have no worries about electric motors to propel a car.
Batteries
So many new battery technologies exist or emerging that it won't be a problem in a decade which is why I put the timeline on good ole ethanol biodiesel as a stop gap for the next 10-20 yrs. Your thinking is all about today where I'm projecting for the future, you know a gas tank weighs a couple hundred pounds as well when its full and electric motors weigh a lot less than a IC engine and systems.
Batteries are the only hurdle left to viable electric cars.
Greenhouse gas emmisions.
Electric motors are about 80% effecient IC engines 30-40% so wheather the electricity comes from coal or not isn't a big deal considering the large gains in effeciency.
http://www.theautochannel.com/...2006/12/11/031109.html
"If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics."
To power all these vehicles today you wouldn't have to build even one more electric plant due to spare capacity in the system once you get rid of light pollution which is wasting about 20% of a plants total generating capacity. Now add lighting effciency and conservation and you come out way ahead.
More and more large scale electrical generation will be coming from renewables really clobbering GH gas emmisions.
Personally I don't worry about GH gases, I come at this from the angle of peak oil. I do worry about replacing liquid fuel as our means of transport because its really difficult to replicate that much stored energy in a form that has so much portability.
The reason we are moving to bio-fuels is becoming less dependant on foreign oil creating a huge trade deficit. The GH gas is a political plus and good for spin not the reason for the push
Gillbot
Lifer
- Jan 11, 2001
- 28,830
- 17
- 81
Originally posted by: SVT Cobra
Originally posted by: Gillbot
Which is why I said I would be happy with it.
I understand your point though, electric cars just aren't practical to many. But for me, most miles my wife accrues are all local city miles so it would work well for her. And at ~300 miles per charge, that would get us to most locations we go to anyway. I'd still probably need a gas vehicle for work so any longer trips we'd use that anyway.
you also have to remember, where would a lot of people plug in?
Once again, that's why I put that I would be happy with it. at ~300 miles, it would get me to work and back without needing a recharge. Then it could top off overnight at home where I could plug it in.
I also had this posted above:
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
nancy pelosi had some question on yahoo answers about 'what do you want in the energy bill?'
my reply was 'end corn subsidies.' that includes the stupid sugar tariff. more rational energy policy and getting away from using corn as the majority of calories in our diets? sounds good to me.
and why the hell aren't we using butanol?
my reply was 'end corn subsidies.' that includes the stupid sugar tariff. more rational energy policy and getting away from using corn as the majority of calories in our diets? sounds good to me.
and why the hell aren't we using butanol?
Cost. It cant be efficiently extracted through organic matter since it uses the ABE process which produces Acetone, Butanol and Ethanol together, so thanks to "still relatively" cheap oil, most Butanol is extracted from petroleum and the cost is somewhere close to $3.70 a gallon. I believe you get only 19.x gallons of Butanol for every 25 gallons of ethanol you're able to make from a certain amount of feedstock.
Extracting lower energy density automobile fuel from automobile fuel seems like a lose-lose proposition to me, but there are processes in development in the pipeline that are looking to fix the drawbacks of organic butanol production.
The EROEI of ethanol is actually negative. Hombre is spot on.
Energy Returned On Energy Invested
Rogo
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
The idea is to use the electric car for commuting. That is where most people use most of their energy consumption.
Someone with four cars should realize that not all should be for the same purpose. It would be like someone that just happens to have a Peterbilt using it for grocery getting, drive throughs and going to the mall.
An alternator is a much bigger motor than an RC one and I can get that for $50.
There are many versions of electric cars some where they put motors direct drive on each wheel. I have no worries about electric motors to propel a car.
well an alternator is only to generate power, not to exert it. big difference. thats why a high quality rc car motor, that creates force, costs more. as in, how much does your starter cost?
http://www.autozone.com/select...shopping/selectZip.htm
with core, its 150. pretty steep for just a small motor thats just used to start a car. and think on a much larger scale that moves the whole vehicle. yes batteries are always evolving, and getting better, but a pound(im using solid weight insetead of liquid measurement because you dont get a gallon of batteries) of gasoline contains more energy than a pound of batteries, although like you said, its a world more efficient at using it, hey as soon as they can get a eletric powered car that can go over 500miles on a single charge, im all for it, but right now, they arent that useable honestly.(sorry about massing all my stuff together, i had to get it done quickly)
edit:corrections in wording.
There are many versions of electric cars some where they put motors direct drive on each wheel. I have no worries about electric motors to propel a car.
well an alternator is only to generate power, not to exert it. big difference. thats why a high quality rc car motor, that creates force, costs more. as in, how much does your starter cost?
http://www.autozone.com/select...shopping/selectZip.htm
with core, its 150. pretty steep for just a small motor thats just used to start a car. and think on a much larger scale that moves the whole vehicle. yes batteries are always evolving, and getting better, but a pound(im using solid weight insetead of liquid measurement because you dont get a gallon of batteries) of gasoline contains more energy than a pound of batteries, although like you said, its a world more efficient at using it, hey as soon as they can get a eletric powered car that can go over 500miles on a single charge, im all for it, but right now, they arent that useable honestly.(sorry about massing all my stuff together, i had to get it done quickly)
edit:corrections in wording.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 409
-
Facebook
Twitter