Automotive Technologies and Alternate Power

[sinmantyx]

I want my electric or hydrogen car with 4-point belts please! Oh yeah, and I want it now.

If I have to buy another internal combustion engine that runs on gas with a shoulder strap...I'm going to be pissed. (Don't give me ethanol either, cause we'll just be getting most of it from sugar producing nations like Venezela...although I'm all for feeding the socialists...that's still not good for America.)

I'm not being the least bit sarcastic. With all this rhetoric about "choice" and "freedom"...what about the choice to be MORE safe on many levels?

I fear though, that the only way to make this happen is to TAKE choice away from the automobile industry.

Do these ideas of choice and freedom extend to the industry? Should it be legal to manufacture and sell an unsafe vehicle and let "market pressures" be the only thing that keeps them in check?

I know I'm recoining the questions, but wouldn't some of those laws also be considered "mandatory seal belt laws"?

[Msterbeau]

I want my electric or hydrogen car with 4-point belts please!  Oh yeah, and I want it now.

If I have to buy another internal combustion engine that runs on gas with a shoulder strap...I'm going to be pissed.  (Don't give me ethanol either, cause we'll just be getting most of it from sugar producing nations like Venezela...although I'm all for feeding the socialists...that's still not good for America.)

I'm not being the least bit sarcastic.  With all this rhetoric about "choice" and "freedom"...what about the choice to be MORE safe on many levels?

I fear though, that the only way to make this happen is to TAKE choice away from the automobile industry.

Do these ideas of choice and freedom extend to the industry?  Should it be legal to manufacture and sell an unsafe vehicle and let "market pressures" be the only thing that keeps them in check?

I know I'm recoining the questions, but wouldn't some of those laws also be considered "mandatory seal belt laws"?

Actually... I'm pretty sure that the corn/plants that ethenol comes from is grown/produced right here in the good ole US.

Fuel cell technology is still not quite ready for prime time. There are still storage and drivability issues galore. There's also no infrastructure in place to sell it from. The government could certainly help with that part.

Funny thing about me.. I may be a proponent of helmets and seatbelts, but generally speaking, I'd trade off a bunch of safety/convenience features for a car that was a few hundred pounds lighter. The gains in efficiency, performance and manueverability far outweigh the merits of those devices in my opinion. Then again, my time racing cars probably gives me a leg up on most drivers in terms of accident avoidance and car-control.

[sinmantyx]

Actually...  I'm pretty sure that the corn/plants that ethenol comes from is grown/produced right here in the good ole US. 

Fuel cell technology is still not quite ready for prime time.  There are still storage and drivability issues galore.  There's also no infrastructure in place to sell it from.  The government could certainly help with that part. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Corn makes for really expensive ethanol...sugar does not. We also need to build the plants to make the ethanol and retrofit everything to be able to deal with the heat, etc. All the while, companies are not keen on investing in a technology that is almost already out of date. If we went to all-ethanol 20 years ago or even earlier, it would have made sense. Now, it really doesn't. At the very least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Making hydrogen is so damn easy, I could do it in my garage. I guess we're all just picking our noses and watching to see if Iceland blows up.

A purely electric car would also make a lot of sense to me...then you are cutting out the middle-man of hydrogen. You also do not have the water-vapor emission of a hydrogen vehicle. Hydrogen, however, can be made on-site anywhere there is water and electricity. Electricity can be made...well, anywhere they have electricity.

If there are any real infrastructure problems, it's our out-of-date power grid.

Reguardless, the least they could do is give me my 4-point seat belts!

[gorfgirl]

It costs 1.5 units of energy to create 1 energy unit of Hydrogen. It's easy, but the cost is to high to make it worth it.

[sinmantyx]

It costs 1.5 units of energy to create 1 energy unit of Hydrogen. It's easy, but the cost is to high to make it worth it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The idea is that increased efficiency of the cars themselves make up for the issues of the efficiency of creating the hydrogen in the first place.

I think you are overestimating the current efficiency of drilling for and refining oil and the actual mechanical efficiency of internal combustion automobiles.

Of course, one of the biggest advantages to hydrogen cars and electric cars is our country's independence from oil producing corporations and countries. (Oh yeah, and we aren't going to run out of hydrogen or electricity anytime soon....photovoltaics are your long-term friends!)

If I had the choice, my next car would be an electric car that I could plug in for commuter driving and perhaps have hydrogen as a back up for long hauls. Actually, if I had the $$$ I would buy this car. It has a range of 250 miles per charge....as if I want to drive more than 250 miles a day? Actually, I think I would get it in dark green! SEXY!

[gorfgirl]

The commercial process for creating fuel grade hydrogen burns fossils fuels. The fact that Hydrogen is at this time more costly in every possible way than fossil fuels is the reason more companys are not moving toward a hydrogen fuel system. Far more research into creating the fuel is needed. When we can get more energy from it than it takes to make it, then, and only then will it be a viable alternative fuel.

[BrassFusion]

Solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity, geothermal. All viable.

[sinmantyx]

When we can get more energy from it than it takes to make it, then, and only then will it be a viable alternative fuel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So, if that's the point where you believe it is viable...it with NEVER happen.

Very very few power plants burn oil. Instead, they burn coal and then (if they are smart) they harvest fissionable materials from the coal ash for use in nuclear power plants. (..and we have a hell of a lot of coal in this country.) It is also possible to create electricity using renewables such as hydroelectricity and solar power. If you have water and electricity --- you have the ability to make hydrogen.

Don't get me wrong, I would like 90% of the driving in this country to be electric cars and NOT hydrogen cars. Because making hydrogen is one more step (making the whole process less efficient) and because putting a whole lot of water vapor into the air is not the best idea; purely electric cars are environmentally much BETTER than hydrogen cars.

However, the problem with electric cars is the range and the amount of time it needs to recharge, which for a great majority of the driving in this country is NOT an issue. The best car would be able to either run on hydrogen OR be plugged in. If the engineers can make that a reality, we'd have the best of both worlds.

[sinmantyx]

The commercial process for creating fuel grade hydrogen burns fossils fuels. The fact that Hydrogen is at this time more costly in every possible way than fossil fuels is the reason more companys are not moving toward a hydrogen fuel system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To be fair, electrolosis of water is only one way of producing hydrogen and you can produce hydrogen from fossil fuels if you want to. However, you don't have to. There are many ways and several people are working on better and more efficient ways to do this (as you mentioned). You can also use biomass, coal, natural gas, etc. instead of straight water. We have those fuels right here at home, in addition to the option of just using electricity and water.

I would disagree very strongly about "costly in every possible way", if you take into account current geopolitics, it's worth the added financial cost to create vehicles that are ultimately powered by a variety of domenstic resources.

[BrassFusion]

That would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  So, if that's the point where you believe it is viable...it with NEVER happen.

Very very few power plants burn oil.  Instead, they burn coal and then (if they are smart) they harvest fissionable materials from the coal ash for use in nuclear power plants.  (..and we have a hell of a lot of coal in this country.)  It is also possible to create electricity using renewables such as hydroelectricity and solar power.  If you have water and electricity --- you have the ability to make hydrogen.

Don't get me wrong, I would like 90% of the driving in this country to be electric cars and NOT hydrogen cars.  Because making hydrogen is one more step (making the whole process less efficient) and because putting a whole lot of water vapor into the air is not the best idea; purely electric cars are environmentally much BETTER than hydrogen cars. 

However, the problem with electric cars is the range and the amount of time it needs to recharge, which for a great majority of the driving in this country is NOT an issue.  The best car would be able to either run on hydrogen OR be plugged in.  If the engineers can make that a reality, we'd have the best of both worlds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what about solar/electric hybrid cars? i find it silly that my car sits in the sun all day and gets ridiculously hot and the energy from that isn't applied. unless i'm way off base for some crazy reason.

[Msterbeau]

what about solar/electric hybrid cars? i find it silly that my car sits in the sun all day and gets ridiculously hot and the energy from that isn't applied. unless i'm way off base for some crazy reason.

It's not nearly efficient enough yet. Look at the solar race cars that the universities have built. Those are not practical cars and they're state of the art.

Electric is going to be a commuter only proposition until someone figures out a way more efficient, quickly rechargable battery. Solar is running up against similar technological limits.

I've seen systems that use a small solar array connected to an electric fan to pump the heat out of the car.. I don't think it was produced though.

I think We've gone way off topic at this point... :erm

I've started a new thread... I'll try and get a mod to move some of the relavent posts over there.

[Msterbeau]

Started from the discussion in the Seat Belt Law Thread...

Continue discussion here:

[HipsterDufus]

Continue discussion here:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like to see some serious government investment (I'm talking HUGE) in researching clean, renewable energy for cars. But it's not going to happen until people are REALLY pissed off. I think it's going to have to get to about $6.00 a gallon though before people really start kicking the government in the ass to do something. Right now, their solution is ethanol. Whoop-dee-do.

[gorfgirl]

Hows does $440million sound? Thats the current per year in Federal funding for Hydrogen fuel research.

[phee]

Hows does $440million sound? Thats the current per year in Federal funding for Hydrogen fuel research.

It would be cool to know how that money is being spent....

[gorfgirl]

It goes to research for the most part. There are many companies working on making Hydrogen a possibility. Until they get past certain hurdles though, it's just not possible to switch to hydrogen.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/01-ask.html

According to them there are three major hurdles:

(1) development of improved fuel cell technologies up to mass-production levels(2) development of viable hydrogen production, storage, and delivery technologies

(3) installation of an integrated hydrogen infrastructure.

As for finding out where that money is going.. just do a Google search... There are many organizations researching Hydrogen fuel and the hurdles it faces.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Hows does $440million sound? Thats the current per year in Federal funding for Hydrogen fuel research.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like it ain't shit compared to how much they are spending on a bullshit war.

Not to mention space travel and other non-necessities.

The reality is, they just set up a fund and then dole out contracts to their cronies...the whole system is fucked, whether you choose to accept it or not.

Until an entrepreneur can figure out how to make money from an alternative fuel source and manage to get through all of the red tape that goes along with that, there won't be any major changes.

[HipsterDufus]

Like it ain't shit compared to how much they are spending on a bullshit war.

Not to mention space travel and other non-necessities.

The reality is, they just set up a fund and then dole out contracts to their cronies...the whole system is fucked, whether you choose to accept it or not.

Until an entrepreneur can figure out how to make money from an alternative fuel source and manage to get through all of the red tape that goes along with that, there won't be any major changes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with everything you just said. If only we could make alternative fuels uber-profitable. Then everyone would jump on them. I wonder what the best way to kick-start the cycle is, though. I certainly don't have millions and millions to invest in alternative fuels, so my only solution is the government. Anyone?

[Msterbeau]

Until an entrepreneur can figure out how to make money from an alternative fuel source and manage to get through all of the red tape that goes along with that, there won't be any major changes.

The scope of the problem is bigger then just one entrepreneur or company sorting out the money problem. Like Kim posted, there are a bunch of seperate hurdles to clear before any of the reasonable alternatives to fossil fuels becomes viable. Solutions like Ethenol, biodiesel and hybrids makes sense now and in the near future because they're bridges to hydrogen and other technologies that aren't ready yet. I think the other impetus besides MAKING money is the cost of oil. Part of the incentive to really push other technologies will come from the fact that as prices rise, more expensive technologies become marketable. As for the technical problems... some of those are straightforward and some demand quantum leaps that may take many years to sort out. A variety of market and environmental forces will drive the increase of R&D spending on these technologies. When? Who knows... Some companies already spend a chunk of change on it...

There's a few more innovations coming for internal cumbustion before they abandon them: I see materials that insolate temps better and decrease heat transfer thus harnessing more of the energy created. Computer-controlled electrically-actuated valve timing will increase power and efficiency over the whole RPM spectrum. Better drive mechanisms:CVT's that can take higher torque loads. More efficient cooling systems. etc..

[n0Mad]

major hurdles:

development of viable hydrogen production, storage, and delivery technologies

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've got a stable storage solution. It's called water.

[Guest Game of Chance]

The scope of the problem is bigger then just one entrepreneur or company sorting out the money problem.  Like Kim posted, there are a bunch of seperate hurdles to clear before any of the reasonable alternatives to fossil  fuels becomes viable. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The whole point of my previous post was that $440mm is not very much compared to $170mm/day for the war in Iraq.

Perhaps its time to reexamine priorities?

Furthermore, I think you discredit the power of entrepreneurs. This country was built that way. Carnegie, Ford, Gates to name a few.

[HipsterDufus]

The whole point of my previous post was that $440mm is not very much compared to $170mm/day for the war in Iraq. 

Perhaps its time to reexamine priorities?

Furthermore, I think you discredit the power of entrepreneurs.  This country was built that way.  Carnegie, Ford, Gates to name a few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the governmental behemoth will slowly rearrange its priorities as people begin to complain to their congressmen/women. That's why I said (in my original post) that I don't think people are pissed off enough about gas prices yet. Of all the people I work with who bitch about the gas prices, not one of them has written to their representative to encourage them to do anything about it. The government will shift its priorities when the majority of moderate, boring America mobilizes.

[Msterbeau]

The whole point of my previous post was that $440mm is not very much compared to $170mm/day for the war in Iraq. 

Perhaps its time to reexamine priorities?

Furthermore, I think you discredit the power of entrepreneurs.  This country was built that way.  Carnegie, Ford, Gates to name a few.

I got your point about the war and I completely agree. However, I'd like this thread to not devolve into politics.

As for the power of entrepreneurs.. I have plenty of faith in them. My point is that it will take at least a few of them to overcome the disparite problems that moving on to other power sources requires. For instance:

Batteries... Until they get charge time down to minutes, weight to something reasonable and storage capacity adequate for 300miles between charges, pure electric cars aren't good for anything but short commutes. Each one of those has had billions of dollars thrown at it and we're still nowhere close.

On a related but seperate thought:

The whole discussion of total cost of a fuel source, the amount of power necessary to bring it to a usable state, etc is interesting to me. I've seen people cite one or more of these types of issues as a reason they're not viable. But... when we're running out of one resource (fossil fuels), it seems to me that some of those considerations have to be tossed.

[gorfgirl]

I'm not sure if anyone read the article or not, I'll try to find it again. I read an article recently on CNN about the EPA and Hybrid cars. According to it the EPA is about to redo the standards they use to figure out the Est. MPG rating they give cars. It has not been updated since the 1980s. The standards as they are now are for perfect driving conditions with perfect weather. They dont take things like cold weather into account. Under the new proposed rules, hybrid cars don't look so appealing. Some of them go from 60MPG to 30MPG. Most will still have the best milage ratings, but they will be a lot lower than they are now.

Heres a link to the proposed standards:

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06009.htm

[phee]

Hybrids are really not there yet....