Car Tech: What's your favorite alternative fuel?
- 4/24/07 5:45 PM
Not much H2 generated
by albizzia - 5/8/07 8:21 PM In reply to: HYDROGEN GENERATOR-CHECK THIS OUT!!! by Violet30If you read the fine print at the site, you find that vehicles with this "generator" still run on regular fossil fuels. Since this electrolysis cell runs at 12 volts 13 amps 156 watts, it doesn't produce much H2, certainly not enough to run a large engine.
The manufacturer claims that the small amount of H2 and O2 produced somehow improves fuel economy. I find that claim highly dubious.
Hybrid Hydrogen
by haf canadian - 5/5/07 12:01 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
It's already been done experimentally, it just needs refinement to be used in our homes and vehicles:
Put the more efficient solar collectors of the future on our roofs or in our yards to make us independent of the coal and nuclear plants and the dams (remove some to let the fish run again); use solar power from our vehicles' roofs to "zap" hydrogen from water in onboard tanks, recombine the hydrogen with oxygen from the air (providing there are enough trees left in Brazil to make oxygen), or free oxygen from the prior reaction, to create the energy to power the vehicle (solar power won't be enough to do that on its own), and the byproduct of that hydrogen "burn" (water) is recycled to the onboard tanks. No pollutants, no fuel stops. Hybridize the electric with the hydrogen engine like we hybridize with gasoline now.
Areas with low seasonal solar input would use stored electricity collected initially from desert-based solar arrays, a public source used like our current coal, nuclear, and dam power plants, but used to supplement any solar energy independently collected by individual homes and buildings.
Biodiesel, alcohol, etc., are merely transition fuels to get us from expensive and increasingly rare fossil fuel-based energy to carbonless hydrogen-electric power; which, when it comes down to it, depends entirely on the only real and ultimate energy source we have -the nuclear power plant called the sun. Using developing techniques like nanotechnology, efficient hydrogen-electric power derived from renewable resources like wind and the sun, that unlike hydropower don't ruin river systems, is the only safe energy future we have.
Costly H2
by albizzia - 5/8/07 8:27 PM In reply to: Hybrid Hydrogen by haf canadianYou obviously have no clue as to how much your proposal would cost.
The "experiment" you refer to cost a half million dollars for just one home, with half of that money coming from a local government grant.
Water Electrolysis is 60% efficient, fuel cells 50%, and it takes energy to compress the H2 for storage. Overall efficiency 25% or less. Much better to use that expensive-but-clean solar energy in an 85% efficient battery electric car.
Decisions, Decisions
by ex_f15_ais - 5/5/07 4:00 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
One of the problems with letting go of today's fossil fuel is finding a true replacement. For instance, no matter how much gasoline you have in the fuel tank, its explosive potential in the cylinder is the same. The gas tank can be full to the brim or hold a single teaspoon, and the power put out is identical (okay, a teaspoon-full won't last long). Electricity does not have that capability--as the fuel cell begins to run down 1/2 charge, 1/4 charge, etc. its ability to maintain the power level it had under a full charge is none existent. A prime example is a flashlight, the bulb is bright when the battery is fully charged and gets dimmer as the battery is used.
Ethanol, touted as a viable replacement is anything but! It is an 85 octane that provides less MPG than regular gasoline, is cost prohibitive to produce, and price is determined by the crop growth--then when everyone switches to growing ethanol producing crops what do we eat.
Hydrogen is definitely viable if it can provide the power and MPG, and overcome the size and weight of the fuel tank.
Whatever happened to the gentleman in FL who successfully designed a car that could run on water and gasoline? His hybrid (based on using water and electricity to create cutting torches) converts H2O into HHO (http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/BrownsGas/WaterFuel.wmv). Wonder if he sold his patent to an oil company?
I am not a proponent to solely living with fossil fuels--but the replaceable alternatives must provide as a minimum all of the options and capabilities that the fossil fuel provides, and some, and be environmentally friendly.
Easy Decision
by FredMars - 6/21/07 6:34 PM In reply to: Decisions, Decisions by ex_f15_aisThere is nothing that willgive the instant torque/horsepower of an electric motor. Nothing. That said, the issue is getting the electricity without having to stop and recharge. Fuel cells are not a good choice. Innovations in capacitor technology is rapidly advancing to a place where solid state "Hyper-capacitors" will hold more charge and can be recharged in minutes, compared to lithium ion batteries that take many hours to charge, take up valuable space and add considerable weight to a vehicle.
The largest obstacle in the path of all electric drive is money/politics. Every lobbyist for power companies and oil companies don't wnat the public to get the idea that electric can be had for free. That is why J. P. Morgan stopped Tesla. If Tesla would have had his way, there would be no power utilities or wires to transport electric. MIT just did a demo of "wireless" electric power using Tesla's technology. But that is only the beginning. The real freedom comes from aether energy.
Solar recharged electric Miata...
by Cooltruth - 5/5/07 4:55 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
I'd like my Miata to run on solar power. Idea would be solar panels to recharge electric motor so I wouldn't have to plug in or stop at gas stations. Not a big deal if it could only run on sunny days as I rarely drive it in crummy weather anyway! Getting tired of gas priced higher nearly everytime I drive by a gas station. Do they think we're made of money?
Do they?
by dre.caruana - 5/6/07 2:11 PM In reply to: Solar recharged electric Miata... by CooltruthAlthough I'm not absolutely sure, I would think that you would have to change your engine to a motor to make your miata run on solar power. Even so, solar panels are not cheap.
Engine due for "repair or replace" soon anyway...
by Cooltruth - 5/7/07 7:04 AM In reply to: Do they? by dre.caruanaGot quoted $900.00 to fix a head gasket problem so I brought the car back home. Still need to check into solarpanel & motor vs engine replacement cost. Gas looks like around $3.00 a gallon recently so the solar conversion would have to be several thousand dollars higher than gasoline engine replacement to make it not worth the change over. A few years worth of gas savings seems like it'd make up for the initial solar conversion so long as car performance wouldn't be compromised. Car would have to be able to keep up with traffic. This would also seem to be a lot cleaner running solution in addition to being practically free once the panels were up & running.
Replace with electric motor
by FredMars - 6/21/07 6:45 PM In reply to: Engine due for "repair or replace" soon anyway... by CooltruthYou may want to contact Tesla Motors in California, and see if they will sell you one of their electric motors, or at the very least, point you to a dealer/manufacturer. The electric motor they have in their Roadster is only 70 lbs. but it produces 250HP. You won't find that power in any hybrid gas/electric. Solar panels for your MIata should not be that expensive. They have solar electric systems for homes now that are 85% efficient on cloudy days, and cost about $5000-$7500, so I'm sure you can find a 12V system much less for a vehicle. The piece that is expensive and inefficient is still the battery bank. Tesla Motors uses Li=Ion cells that weigh over 1000 lbs. But their motor can get you from 0-60 in about 4 seconds and take you around 200 miles between charges.
There are places on the web you can surf to that offer solar panels that are not going to require you take out a new mortgage to save money on fuel. You'll just have to do a bit of homework to find them.
I have to respond.
by Andy77e - 7/7/07 3:40 PM In reply to: Engine due for "repair or replace" soon anyway... by CooltruthI hate to dash ones hopes, but I also hate people being misinformed.
The cost to change your car over to electric will be excessive. But I'm not going to sugar coat it, nor am I going to put on some rose colored glasses. Just the truth, as best I know it.
On average, an electric car requires about 34 Kilo Watt Hours, to drive 100 miles. If you drive at most, 50 miles a day, you would need 510 Kilo Watt Hours a month. In order to get that you would need a 40 solar panel system that is $29,750 and you wire it yourself, and this assumes you live in a high sun energy area like San Diego. In a location that gets less sun, you'll need a larger kit.
Since 40 solar panels will not fit on any production car, you'll have to put them on your house, and get a battery for the car. I know that a NiMH battery pack used in Hybrid cars are $2000 to $4000, but that's whole sale (which you won't get) and they are not offered publicly anyway. I wager the Lithium Ion packs used by Tesla Motors are vastly more expensive. But without one, you would likely get only 100 miles a charge at best.
Finely you need a motor. Although some have made out as if Tesle Motors automobiles had some super amazing motor, it really isn't. It is simply a 4-pole 3-phase AC induction motor. You can look this up online, or at any industrial supply chain. The key is, the motor must be able to handle differing road conditions. Bounce, hits, debris, weather, water, ice, and of course dust dust dust. Most motors are made cheaply and are designed to be stationary and handle an indoor environment. A 125 HP 3 phase 4 pole motor will run you about $9,000.00 according to www.emotorstore.com, but it is RPM limited to 1800, which means you'll need to figure out how to gear it.
Finely you have a battery pack putting out DC current, and a motor that requires 3 phase AC current. You need a controller. The controller takes the DC current, and makes it 3-phase AC and controls the speed of the motor compared to your foot pedal, it also controls the recharge of your batteries when you plug it in. Currently the best controller that you can buy, that has all those features, is made by AC Propulsion, and costs about $2,500.
AC Propulsion has a whole kit for $25,000
There are a number of other places selling EV kits as well.
Be careful though, a number of them sold individual parts, but required extra parts not listed. Like one listed a $2,500 motor, that required a $1,250 cooling system. They priced out each separately to conceal total cost. Some used regular acid batteries, but those will wear out in just days from charge/discharge cycles.
As a whole, a conversion will cost you at least $30,000 or more. Because even after you get the power supply, the motor, the controller... you still have to covert all the accessories over as well. Power steering, power brakes, A/C, and anything else will have to be converted to electric. Plus you'll need a 12-volt DC limiter to connect everything inside the car. The power pack will put out 300 volts, which will turn your 12-volt radio to sludge, plus power windows, locks and anything else.
Lastly, but just as important, all this cost is for the parts. Who is going to put all that in your car... after they remove everything else, and what are you going to drive during that time?
I didn't mean to dash anyones hopes, but it's better to get a clear view of a project before you start something you can't finish. Sounds to me like you should buy a gasket. Save this for a day when you have extra time, and lots of extra money, and an extra car to use during that time.
You don't need 40 PV panels
by FredMars - 7/10/07 4:53 AM In reply to: I have to respond. by Andy77eYou want to power the car directly from the sun? You don't need all that solar to recharge, and using several recharging methods you can extend range quite a bit.
Since power brakes and steering use belt drive pumps, another method such as compressed air may be used. But I agree with you that it would be vastly more e`xpensive to convert a IC powered vehicle to electric. But like the Tesla Roadster which is geared to a "select" market. is still a proof of concept.
Several technologies need to converge as well as further R & D before viable electric vehicles become affordable and practical.
Tesla Motors control software may be unique not in its principle, but in its application. Applying wireless power transmission instead of wired to the grid, can answer the recharging issue once and for all.
I don't follow the logic
by Andy77e - 7/10/07 4:30 PM In reply to: You don't need 40 PV panels by FredMarsIf you are just using solar panels to supplement recharging the batteries, then you don't. But it will not extend range by much at all. In fact I doubt anyone would notice.
According to the Tesla Motors website, their engine would consume roughly 8,855 Watthours to go 50 miles. The average car could hold, at most, two large sized solar panels. The two panels combined should produce 341 Watts an hours. Let's recap: In one hour at 50 MPH, you are going to use 8,855 Watts, and you are going to generate 341 Watts. Hmmm... where does the other 8,514 Watthours coming from? Btw, two panels will add 80 lbs to the car, increasing power usage.
Let me put it another way. In one hour, your car with two solar panels will generate enough power to move the car about 2 miles. If your EV has a max range of 100 miles, and you drive at 50 MPH, the solar panels will extend the total range by 4 miles, leaving you dead in the water at 104 miles. Exactly how do you define "extend range quite a bit"?
Oh BTW, these high efficiency panels are $1,000 per. In other words, you are going to spend $2,000 to increase your EVs range from 100 miles to 104 miles a charge, and still pay for the other 20 some kiloWatt hours you'll need to buy from the power company, in order to recharge your battery. Only in America would someone do this.
Ok let's skip the car, and let's put solar panels on the house, and recharge the car for free when we get home, ok? So how many panels do we need? Assuming you drive about 50 miles a day (I do) you would need, 8,855 Watthour from the battery every day. But charging a battery is at BEST 85% efficient (and I think that's too high an estimate). So we need at least 10,183 Watt Hours to charge that battery up. A 3,000 Watt Hour system, consisting of 20 solar panels would be able to do this (assuming you live in a high sun energy area like San Diego). It would only cost $23,000. Of course you could skip the solar panels, buy the power from the grid for less than $465 yearly (assuming you pay 12.5 cents per kWh, most pay less), but hey.
Of course I said it would require 40 solar panels before. The difference is before I was using the Toyota Rav4 EV as my basis, which has higher power requirements because it holds 5 people and has cargo space, whereas the Tesla is a two seater, and no cargo space, and has 0-60 in 4 seconds.
Using an air compressor would be more inefficient. It would be better to use an electric power steering pump and electric brake assist, than to use a horribly inefficient air pump. Also power steering and power brakes run horridly on compressed air, so performance would be lost as well.
The Tesla Roadster would be a proof of what concept? EVs have been available for years. No one ever thought an EV wouldn't work. The question was, would it be fun to drive, have good range, and be affordable. Of course if you are charging $100 thousand you can make a good range fun to drive EV.
The more I look at the Tesla Roadster, the more unamazing it seems. It is basically a modified off the shelf chassis, with an off the shelf suspension setup, it uses a slightly modified 4-pole 3-phase AC Induction motor (that have been in use for years), a Lithium Ion battery (that also have been around for years, maybe not in that size), and a standard 3-phase inverter, but with computer controlled speed and direction, and a standard battery charger to recharge it. The only thing unique would seem to be the 2-speed motor gearing.
Where do you get your data?
by FredMars - 7/10/07 9:35 PM In reply to: I don't follow the logic by Andy77eWhere do you get your data regarding solar PV? What are all of the people that have installed these devcies doing? Are they investing tens of thousands to reap a return on investment in 93 years?
Tesla Motors also says that they can recharge using 240VAC in about 3-4 hoyrs and they have a range of about 200 miles, twice that of which you claim. Perhaps you are referring to another EV?
As for the innovation of the Tesla Roadster, it is an "off-the-shelf" package that has innovative software. My complaint about other EV's has been the fact that they are under powered, grossly inconvenient, and prove nothing except that big automakers don't put time and money into alternatives that do not require fuels of some type.
Tesla Motors is discussing the use of a new storage medium that does not require chemical batteries and is much lghter than their current LiIon cells. Based on what the designers tout, it can recharge in minutes as opposed to hours, and hold 1.5-2.0 times the power.
But as you write, let me see it and I'll believe it.
I have seen a wind powered 12VDC and 24VDC system that generates more electric than the house used, therby selling power back to the grid. Back in 1976 when the gas "shortages" got prices to start climbing, and so did home heating fuels, some starting installing solar and wind generation. AMny companies like Jognson-Matthey Metals Refining, install cogen and other energy efficiency devices as well as developed fuel cells that could provide chemically produced energy for years. It is kept expensive through government contracts and classifying the technology for national security reasons.. Where did I come up with that? I worked there. JM provided the platinum and technology used in catalytic converters for emission control standards.
I know snake oil when I see it and the Petrochemical and power industries are just that. Pay no attention to that man being the curtain, we are the great an powerful energy gods and there is no other energy source greater than us.
Thank you for leading me to the light!
Information FYI
by Andy77e - 7/11/07 10:16 AM In reply to: Where do you get your data? by FredMarsThe Tesla Roadster uses a Lithium Ion batter, a big one. This battery is custom made and is not yet publicly available. Plus it is horrendously expensive. I would wager the average cost is over $10,000 just for the battery pack. Therefor, in my calculations, I assumed the average Joe American would likely use a regular battery, or at best a NiMH pack, which would have a 100 mile max.
The Lithium pack can with-stand faster recharge times, better than any other pack. Charging at 240VAC would not be recommended for a non-lithium pack. However it might be done, but normal average homes do not have 240VAC lines. (at least not in my area). Further, if one was installed, you would need a more expensive recharger designed to use 240VAC, most are not.
I would suggest the reason for the why big automakers have made such crappy EVs is because they put in place a cost limit. In order to make a mass production consumer product, the cost must be limited to an affordable amount. GM could make something like the Tesla Roadster easy when they cost $100,000 per car. The problem is, GM doesn't make 20 cars a year at $100K each. They make a 100,000 cars a year at $20,000 each. You can't make a good EV at $20,000, that's why the Tesla is $100,000.
My information regarding PVs, as I stated in another post, is the CEC (California Energy Commission), Solar Home (a national retailer of Solar Panel Home kits), Renewable Resource Data Center (which is government run through the Department of Energy), Sharp Corporation's documentation on their solar panels (although EvergreenSolar is also good) and various other sources.
So why do rich people buy solar panel kits. Answer: to get tax breaks, tax credits, and REC money.
Subsidies: In some are, government takes tax payer money and subsidizes renewable energy sources. A rich man in Tennessee purchased a $60,000 solar panel kit for his massive home. $48,000 was covered by a government subsidy (read tax payers).
Tax Breaks: Rich people pay a lot of taxes. Just having purchased a solar panel gives a tax break, even if it does not produce much (or any) power.
RECs: The government has created the REC program which requires power some power companies to purchase Renewable Energy Credits. In the case above, the Rich guy in Tennessee, receives $3,000 every year from the power company for RECs.
Free power: On top of getting $3,000 from the power company (a cost passed on to the power companies customers), and the tax break, and the subsidy (which tax payers pay for), the rich man also gets power from the system, which covers about 1/4 of his yearly power needs.
I'm against all but the free power. Subsidies are horrible. Why should the working class pay taxes that are then handed out to a rich guy just so he can buy a solar panel and not pay for power? I'm also against RECs, why should everyone else pay a higher cost for energy just so a rich guy can get $3,000 a year for RECs? And I'm against tax breaks. If I have to pay tax, everyone should. If I don't then no one else should. Everyone should pay the same tax no matter what. If we truly believe in "equality" then everyone should pay equal tax. Why should he get a break for doing something that only benefits him?
Anyway, hope that answers your questions. Talk to you soon.
You are righter
by FredMars - 7/11/07 9:10 PM In reply to: Information FYI by Andy77eNo matter who offers an alternative you have a reason why it won't work. So since you are righter than me, what is your solution to changing the energy paradigm?
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
