Seriously thoughtful Electric Cars : BYD

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

It may never happen, but if someone ever devises an economical and energy efficient way to break the covalent bonds between hydrogen and oxygen--thus enabling fuel to be stored as water and released as needed--that person will make a mint!

Didn't you read yvanleterribles post............doing that breaks a fundamental law of thermodynamics and is a complete and utter myth that such an economical and energy efficient way can ever be achieved.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Didn't you read yvanleterribles post............doing that breaks a fundamental law of thermodynamics and is a complete and utter myth that such an economical and energy efficient way can ever be achieved.

Yeah, but I can't help but feel there's a work-around. Plants do it all the time.

[WT Sharpe]

New Way To Split Water Into Hydrogen And Oxygen Developed

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0406102555.htm

It's not here yet, but I feel the day is coming when an energy efficient and economical way to separate hydrogen from water will be found.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Yeah, but I can't help but feel there's a work-around. Plants do it all the time.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

New Way To Split Water Into Hydrogen And Oxygen Developed

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0406102555.htm

It's not here yet, but I feel the day is coming when an energy efficient and economical way to separate hydrogen from water will be found.

I totally agree.

Years ago the idea of EV's were scoffed at because of the problems with the weight and size of batteries and now look at them.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Whilst "less polution" is of course better, I don't think this should cause all research into other options that may end up producing "no pollution" to be ceased or completely ignored.

Agreed. It is hoped that it will be easier and more efficient to convert major power plants to alternative fuels at their more limited locations, and to add smaller alternative fuel stations at more locations, spreading out the available load and taking the load off of oil and coal. Power can also be more decentralized if individual homes can provide more of their own power, economize on what they use, and sore some of it to charge things like vehicles.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Firstly, I do not take your comments regarding selfish people expecting others to change whilst they themselves refuse to, personally...

Good, as I was not directing that comment at anyone in particular (maybe Ralph, but just because he's a cynic, and therefore has set himself up to be picked on ). Without knowing the individual needs of each person, it is impossible to say what technology is best suited for whom. It is also worth noting that the EV is intended to suit 90% of the U.S.' driving needs... that obviously suggests that the 10% left (people like you, now that we know your driving situation better) may need other tech. But if we have taken 90% of oil-burning vehicles off the roads, we can afford the other 10% that is still there.

My only point was that most American drivers are fully capable of using EVs, or public trans, for that 90% of their needs, but simply do not want to sacrifice the convenience of a gas-powered car, even if it actually costs them more in the long run. For most of them, it is a perception thing, or a vanity thing, or (let's face it) a laziness thing. Many of them have low opinions of public trans, and much of that is unfounded--as unfounded, in fact, as many of the advantages of personal cars (traffic and parking costs, for instance, do not come close to outweighing the convenience of my taking the train to work every day).

To be fair, there is a lot of need to improve public trans nationwide, to increase efficiency, comfort, convenience, safety and practicality. And that, in turn, could save money elsewhere, especially in the upkeep demands of an infrastructure sagging under the weight of all those individual cars.

On a hydrogen note, I remember few years ago hearing about a supposedly efficient method of safely storing and carrying hydrogen in sodium hydroxide--giving you sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). Vehicles would literally carry baking soda in the tank, and the car would use a chemical process to remove the hydrogen for fuel. Once the baking soda had all been converted to sodium hydroxide, you pull into a service station and have the hydroxide replaced with the bicarbonate (or recharge hydrogen into the hydroxide to get more bicarbonate).

I don't have access to any of the process details, so I can't recall anything about the process, how fast or efficient it is, or if it would be suited to daily use vehicles.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I couldn't agree more, I'd love to see Car3.0 come along. I'm just not convinced the one and only answer is the electric car and that all other means of propulsion should be summarily dismissed from the discussion.

Maybe we should start a Car3.0 thread...

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You'd be better off going with the compressed air car that is being developed today. It, and practical EVs, will be here much sooner than hydrogen cars (by an order of 3-5 decades, I'd imagine).

Everything factors out to a matter of energy density, not only of the vehicle itself, but also the underlying energy delivery infrastructure.

It's possible, but expensive, to adjust the infrastructure to compensate for lower energy densities of the vehicles. The bottom line is that petroleum products (gasoline/diesel/jet fuel) currently enjoy the highest energy density of any technology, not only on the vehicle end but also the infrastructure side. Until that changes, I'm afraid we will not see any significant advances in alternative technologies.

As is being seen in the popularity of hybrid vehicles, the best we can hope for is to increase the efficiency of the vehicles.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by wodin

Everything factors out to a matter of energy density, not only of the vehicle itself, but also the underlying energy delivery infrastructure.

It's possible, but expensive, to adjust the infrastructure to compensate for lower energy densities of the vehicles. The bottom line is that petroleum products (gasoline/diesel/jet fuel) currently enjoy the highest energy density of any technology, not only on the vehicle end but also the infrastructure side. Until that changes, I'm afraid we will not see any significant advances in alternative technologies.

As is being seen in the popularity of hybrid vehicles, the best we can hope for is to increase the efficiency of the vehicles.

They could give them better batteries and pluggability features. At least GM promises that with the Chevy Volt but 50,000 cars a year, 15,000 the first year? They're dragging their feet.
Now that they've reimbursed their debt to the government, they're liable to pull the plug on the Volt. They've done that before...

I'm a big fan of the MDI Air car and have been since 99. The big problem is that they're not a big enough company to produce them. And their manufacturing program of selling turnkey factories to other countries makes no sense in America. They had a site up in the State two years ago but they took it out. I'm not sure why but I suspect homologation was not possible.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by wodin

The bottom line is that petroleum products (gasoline/diesel/jet fuel) currently enjoy the highest energy density of any technology, not only on the vehicle end but also the infrastructure side. Until that changes, I'm afraid we will not see any significant advances in alternative technologies.

Things like cost, availability and environmental damage are changing that bottom line equation right now. It's only a matter of (short) time before the energy density advantage of oil is outweighed by its downsides... or the whole system, propping itself up for too long to ignore those downsides, collapses upon itself and leaves us no choice but to convert the bulk of our driving to alternative systems.

[Joebill]

While I have no problem with viable alternatives to oil, there are presently none.

Making all those extra batteries is highly polluting.

The only present way to make the gigawatts of electricity needed to charge a nation of electric cars and busses every night is this: nuclear power plants and coal fired boilers to generate steam then eletricity.

Yes, there are windmills, but they cause environmental damage, and they have to be where the wind is constant enough to turn the wind mills and generate electricity. The bigger the blades the higher the wind speed has to be. I checked into this in 1977 and I watch recent documentaries. it just doesn't work, still experimental.

Solar cells: incredibly poor quality. They just don't generate large quatities of electricty with small amounts of solar cells.

For an environmental science class in 1990 I did the research for viable powerr generation. Coal and nuclear was it, with water/dams a distant third.

The rest are barely out of alpha test stage.

I would love to see a viable alternative, but it doesn't exist now.

Oh, corn into oil. Well, there is a weed, not a food product, that gives more oil per acre than corn does. But it is being ignored because farmers don't grow it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Joebill

While I have no problem with viable alternatives to oil, there are presently none.

Making all those extra batteries is highly polluting.

The only present way to make the gigawatts of electricity needed to charge a nation of electric cars and busses every night is this: nuclear power plants and coal fired boilers to generate steam then eletricity.

Yes, there are windmills, but they cause environmental damage, and they have to be where the wind is constant enough to turn the wind mills and generate electricity. The bigger the blades the higher the wind speed has to be. I checked into this in 1977 and I watch recent documentaries. it just doesn't work, still experimental.

Solar cells: incredibly poor quality. They just don't generate large quatities of electricty with small amounts of solar cells.

For an environmental science class in 1990 I did the research for viable powerr generation. Coal and nuclear was it, with water/dams a distant third.

The rest are barely out of alpha test stage.

I would love to see a viable alternative, but it doesn't exist now.

Oh, corn into oil. Well, there is a weed, not a food product, that gives more oil per acre than corn does. But it is being ignored because farmers don't grow it.

Natural gas. Huge amounts have been found in the last 10 years, dramatically dropping the price.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Agreed. It is hoped that it will be easier and more efficient to convert major power plants to alternative fuels at their more limited locations, and to add smaller alternative fuel stations at more locations, spreading out the available load and taking the load off of oil and coal. Power can also be more decentralized if individual homes can provide more of their own power, economize on what they use, and sore some of it to charge things like vehicles.



Good, as I was not directing that comment at anyone in particular (maybe Ralph, but just because he's a cynic, and therefore has set himself up to be picked on ). Without knowing the individual needs of each person, it is impossible to say what technology is best suited for whom. It is also worth noting that the EV is intended to suit 90% of the U.S.' driving needs... that obviously suggests that the 10% left (people like you, now that we know your driving situation better) may need other tech. But if we have taken 90% of oil-burning vehicles off the roads, we can afford the other 10% that is still there.

My only point was that most American drivers are fully capable of using EVs, or public trans, for that 90% of their needs, but simply do not want to sacrifice the convenience of a gas-powered car, even if it actually costs them more in the long run. For most of them, it is a perception thing, or a vanity thing, or (let's face it) a laziness thing. Many of them have low opinions of public trans, and much of that is unfounded--as unfounded, in fact, as many of the advantages of personal cars (traffic and parking costs, for instance, do not come close to outweighing the convenience of my taking the train to work every day).

To be fair, there is a lot of need to improve public trans nationwide, to increase efficiency, comfort, convenience, safety and practicality. And that, in turn, could save money elsewhere, especially in the upkeep demands of an infrastructure sagging under the weight of all those individual cars.

On a hydrogen note, I remember few years ago hearing about a supposedly efficient method of safely storing and carrying hydrogen in sodium hydroxide--giving you sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). Vehicles would literally carry baking soda in the tank, and the car would use a chemical process to remove the hydrogen for fuel. Once the baking soda had all been converted to sodium hydroxide, you pull into a service station and have the hydroxide replaced with the bicarbonate (or recharge hydrogen into the hydroxide to get more bicarbonate).

I don't have access to any of the process details, so I can't recall anything about the process, how fast or efficient it is, or if it would be suited to daily use vehicles.



Maybe we should start a Car3.0 thread...

My fan club!!!

(Paraphrased from Ambrose Bierce)
Cynic - A surly blackguard who insists upon seeing the world as it is, rather that as it should be....

Who decides who gets the 90% and who gets the 10%? If you really think it's going to be done on actual need or merit of the situation, I've got some land just east of Miami Beach for sale....

Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is the alkali equivalent of Hydrocloric Acid (and just as dangerous)

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Natural gas. Huge amounts have been found in the last 10 years, dramatically dropping the price.

Fossil fuel.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

My fan club!!!

(Paraphrased from Ambrose Bierce)
Cynic - A surly blackguard who insists upon seeing the world as it is, rather that as it should be....

Who decides who gets the 90% and who gets the 10%? If you really think it's going to be done on actual need or merit of the situation, I've got some land just east of Miami Beach for sale....

Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is the alkali equivalent of Hydrocloric Acid (and just as dangerous)

If that was quoted from memory, that's pretty good, RSE!

The exact quote is:

"CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision."
— Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Karma to you for mentioning that book!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

If that was quoted from memory, that's pretty good, RSE!

The exact quote is:

"CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision."
— Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Karma to you for mentioning that book!

It's available on project gutenberg US. Ambrose Bierce disappeared in 1913. That made him legally dead in 1920...

I prefer my quoted rephrasing better.....(I don't view seeing reality as it is as - faulty...)

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

It's available on project gutenberg US. Ambrose Bierce disappeared in 1913. That made him legally dead in 1920...

I prefer my quoted rephrasing better.....(I don't view seeing reality as it is as - faulty...)

If I'm not mistaken, I first downloaded it from Project Gutenberg back in the days when all their files were plain text ("brown paper wrapper") files and they did not yet have 3,000 books on their site. I've had the file a whole lot longer than I've had an e-reader!