So now we can put the battery in *front* of the display?

[yvanleterrible]

The basic idea behind e-cars is not a use such as an all around SUV. It is a specific purpose short haul vehicle, the type of commute we do the most. I'd say that to most people less than 1% of their trips is over the 150mile range of an e-vehicle charge. Just like the offroad trips is less than 1% for SUVs. Do this simple observation and a choice is pretty clear. As I've said before, an e-car is a combo with a solar carport, where as soon as the car enters it begins charging. No operation necessary. Such a car has almost no maintenance to be done to it. Even with a higher sticker price it will be cheaper in the long run. If it's the stop light race that interests you, e-cars set most acceleration records at some point.

If you really need a specific type of vehicle for an outing of some kind, rent it. It is cheaper and greener in the longrun. For basic a_b commutes E is better.

[nekokami]

Or a bicycle.

Multiuse components reduce weight and expense... unless they add volume and/or complexity. Adding another layer to a display makes the display more complex to produce and possibly thicker/more fragile, as well. Adding a layer to a window reduces transparency of the window, I'm sure. But all of this could be negated by the idea of shortening the distance between power and use, I agree.

Ethanol will only be a viable fuel option in my mind when it is produced from something that requires no petroleum-based fertilizers and minimal power to harvest and process.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Any component that can do double duty performs a weight and space savings....
The actual energy storage concepts of today still use as a base the dreaded lead/acid cell. How backwards. This new format of storage, if keeps to its promises, will drastically improve many aspects of energy consumption.

Right. So, take this ever-so-thin battery, and create flexible layers of them that can be slipped into every crevasse of a car, to store power, and weigh less than lead-acid batteries. If layers of them can sit against or even replace the car's insulation, you'll have potentially hundreds of square feet of batteries.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Ethanol will only be a viable fuel option in my mind when it is produced from something that requires no petroleum-based fertilizers and minimal power to harvest and process.

Now that's a factor I hadn't even considered, neko, the energy budget to grow, harvest and produce the stuff.

[sea2stars]

The technology already exists for highly efficient commuter cars without the need/extra cost for hybrids and the such. This project is a prime example. I doubt the 20HP version would sell well in the states, but the 50Hp version would suit me just fine, and still theoretically get around 100MPG; quick calc in my head.

Ethanol right now is just a political gimmick. Bush meets again with the Big 3

It costs automakers $50 extra to make a car able to use "flex-fuel". They get a credit towards meeting fuel standards, even though right now ethanol replaces about 1% of gas in parts of this country; the assumption is 50% when they're given the credit if I remember correctly.

It should be interesting what this new Supreme Court ruling about the EPA & gas mileage brings about.

[NatCh]

I found it interesting when I learned that Henry Ford's original design ran on either gasoline or ethanol, and that he favored the ethanol. I also seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of the racing cars run on ethanol, but I'm not real clear on that one.

[nekokami]

More info about the inefficiencies of ethanol here: http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0329132436.htm

The US government contests these analyses. An overview of the factors involved is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol...energy_balance

Improvements in the fermentation process which allow ethanol to be produced from cellulose, rather than food components like starch and sugar, may tip the balance. But for now, I think conservation and improved efficiency are a better short-term bet. There are an awful lot of hungry people in this world. I'm not keen on a system that turns food into energy.

Medium term, I'd like to think this might work:
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003...-Oil1may03.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

[sea2stars]

Rudolf Diesel thought that diesel fuel based on soybean oil was the way to go.

Yeah. Ethanol was favored but gasoline became king since it was much cheaper, and then they figured out putting lead in it greatly improved performance.

Heh. I was put through a loop that NASCAR still uses leaded fuel; converting to a lead free version sometime next year.

Thermal depolymerization. Hey. Would this make soylent fuel a possibility? I can imagine the bumper stickers now; My car runs on people.

[NatCh]

You mean like the stuff these folks are working on, sea2stars? I've been pretty excited about it for some time now.

[sea2stars]

Sweet. Thanks for that link!

[yvanleterrible]

A warning note to all. In the quest for alternative energy use we have to beware of one thing. If a solution is proposed by a car manufacturer, an oil company or even the government, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY GREEN.

Those entities are seeking to preserve status quo. Meaning THEIR industries, infrastructures and economy. Being ecofriendly comes third.

If cars were electric they'd lose maintenance services.
If cars were electric they'd lose car obsolescense replacement opportunity.
If cars were electric they'd lose fuel sales, refining and storage fees.
If cars were electric they'd lose LOTS of money.
If cars were electric they'd lose opportunity for war and fear induced masses control.

When they propose ethanol, biofuels, natural gas and hydrogen they keep all above alive.

The electric car that uses solar energy uses the only free energy, the only one that comes from outside the planet. It has low maintenance and if built with appropriate materials, can last half a million miles easily. Engineering is simple and requires less than a third of the parts necessary for an ICE powered car. Coupled to small solar stations, it costs next to nothing in fuel use. There is no reason to go to war to maintain solar energy provision.

The first existing car was electric, it was before gas.

This debate can not exist because it has been forbidden by money and power.

I've been wanting an ecar since 1973 when the first (artificial) petroleum shortage shook economy. In 2001 there was The Electric Car Symposium in Montréal. They rented the Gilles Villeneuve race track and allowed everyone with a driving permit to try a selection of 8 different cars made by Toyota, Nissan, GM, Ford and Hydro Québec. I tried four of them. I was in love....

Sorry about all of this, I had to say it.

[nekokami]

yvan, I'm with you on the advantages of the electric car, particularly when charged by solar power. I just wanted to point out, for completeness' sake, that any biofuel is in effect a solar fuel, as the energy stored in the hydrocarbons or whatever by the plants comes from the sun (and recently, as opposed to fossil hydrocarbons). The issue is efficiency. Existing solar cells need improvements, batteries need improvements... but biofuels aren't necessarily all that efficient, either, in terms of how much solar energy they make available for later use, even if using a very efficient engine (which the internal combustion engine is not).

Long-term, hydrogen fusion still seems like a really good idea, as we've got plenty of hydrogen and the byproducts are clean. But that's been coming "real soon now" for... well... even longer than stylus calibration on the iLiad.

NatCh, yes, that's the same group as referenced in the link I posted. I just figured I might as well post a link to a marginally independent review rather than going straight to the company.

Hm... "This vehicle runs on (soylent) green power..."

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Hm... "This vehicle runs on (soylent) green power..."

Good one. Sometimes I have the impression that foods are that way now too. Have you seen the movie? 30 years later it's still as good.

Bio fuels are carbon based, not newly added like fossil fuels, but added. Before we use them we have a good cleening up to do. Using them now is just as bad because of the vehicles we run.

BTW there is a good documentary that was done last year.
"Who Killed The Electric Car"

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I've been wanting an ecar since 1973 when the first (artificial) petroleum shortage shook economy.

I remember an Earth Day festival on the Mall in Washington DC around 1976 or 77. Friends of mine and I saw at least half a dozen fully electric cars, at least one by GM, and the others by independents or little-known foreign car makers. I remember thinking at the time, "By 2000, I'll be able to buy an electric car!"

In 2000, I needed a car. The Honda electric was tiny and expensive, the Toyota electric even moreso, the GM electric had apparently been consumed by the desert, and I ended up buying a low-cost Korean car that got the same MPG as the Datsun my mother had bought 15 years previous, and cost me $4,000 less than the Honda.

As much as I like my car, I was incredibly disappointed that my electric choices were so bad. I'm still hoping that someone works out a way to retrofit my car with an electric plant someday (when the current engine runs out of warranty, or just becomes too old or expensive to run). In fact, if I had any experience with cars, I'd be actively pursuing a retrofit business as a career move.

[nekokami]

Steve,

Make magazine ran an article on converting your own car to electricity in Vol 5. It looked doable, even to a non-electrician like myself. You can subscribe to the digital edition now and get the archives for free. http://www.makezine.com (though as I type this, something seems to be not quite right with their server).

yvan, all carbon fuels put CO2 into the atmosphere, but growing plants for biofuels takes it out again. That's how the energy is stored. Remember, plants make sugars as a food source by using the energy in sunlight to break up CO2 and recombine it, ready to be combined again with oxygen to release the energy stored in the sugar. Plant sugars are nature's battery for solar energy. Alcohol fuels (including ethanol) derived from plant sugars harnesses yeast to convert the sugar to a form human machinery can more readily use for energy-- though I still have a problem with converting sugar/food into fuel. However, plants also convert CO2 into cellulose for structural purposes, and that can also be converted to human-usable energy, either by burning, as with wood, or by fermenting to methanol. Biodiesel uses fats created by plants to store energy, which again use CO2 from the atmosphere.

The remaining problems are efficiency (do we design engines to use as much as possible of the solar energy stored in the biofuels?) and clean burn, which are related issues. Alcohol burning at perfect efficiency should produce only water vapor and CO2 - no more CO2 than was removed from the atmosphere to produce the alcohol in the first place. But incomplete/inefficient burn can result in CO (carbon monoxide, a poison), NO (nitrous oxide), O3 (ozone), and soot (carbon particulates). All of these are health hazards to most animal life.

Sorry for the lecture-- I guess I've spent too much time thinking about this lately....