Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
Oops, I have just been guilty of the RAS syndrome ("redundant acronym syndrome syndrome"), the same mistake as "ATM machine" or "PIN number" or "HIV virus" or "LCD display".Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzurover
I really should be more careful! :p
What could work is rather than a hybrid, perhaps a plug-in electric SUV (Evoque or RRS comes to mind) with a super-capacitor for storage. For the majority of day to day use, most people would drive under 100km in a city such as Sydney, so these cars would work well, and be able to be charged up overnight on the base load, hence less wasted generation capacity.
Personally I'd buy one for daily commuting (not an SUV, perhaps more a Tesla if the price is right), where the SDV6 isn't the most economical due to short runs distance-wise, albeit not time-wise.
For longer runs, the SDV6 would then come into its own.
There are kits available to convert Prius (etc) to plug in electrics:Quote:
Originally Posted by phl
Plug-In Supply | Plug-In Conversions for the Toyota Prius
I designed and built a KER system when I was in primary school, it was fitted to a pedal car, I have all the bits to resurrect it, but I no longer fit in the pedal car :p
In the usual use of the term 'alternative fuel', hydrogen cannot be considered a fuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR LR
Hydrogen is not an energy source. It does not occur naturally, but must be made. It is only an energy transfer material, whose major (only?)asset is that it produces virtually zero pollution of any kind at the point of use.
It difficult (hydrogen embrittlement is a serious problem with many materials) and very dangerous to handle (hydrogen leaks through any known material when under pressure and forms an explosive mixture with air over a wide range of proportions, 4-74%, and ignites very readily, with an almost invisible flame), and has a very low energy density whether considered either in terms of volume or weight (including container) compared to traditional fuels.
Production of hydrogen is energy-inefficient. If produced by the currently most practical way from natural gas, it still uses fossil fuel, and in a way that is less energy efficient than simply using CNG and produces more CO2 than the same fuel if used directly. If produced by electrolysis, the process is very inefficient, and begs the question as to where the energy for the power generation comes from. If produced from, for example, solar or wind energy, then in most cases a straight electric vehicle would be a better bet.
The energy inefficiency inherent in the use of hydrogen to some extent can be mitigated if you use fuel cell technology, but this loses you the other practical advantage, that it can be used with existing engine designs.
Sorry, I can't share your enthusiasm for hydrogen, and I predict it will never be used as a general transport fuel.
John
Methanol contains more hydrogen by weight than pure cryogenically liquid Hydrogen, or so I'm told. It can be stored in regular fuel tanks at around atmospheric pressure and can run both fuel cells and regular combustion engines. That is where I think the future in synthetic energy transfer media lies. The design of better catalysts will keep engineers busy for many decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR LR
Just to add a bit to the hydrogen story, an acquaintance was once CEO of British Oxygen Asia Pacific.
Apparently in the 90s Perth City Council trialled a fleet of Hydrogen buses and BO supplied the hydrogen.
The acquittance raised this as his biggest disaster as to work back then the hydrogen had to be 99% pure while industrial hydrogen is quite a bit less.
BO had to spend a lot of money to supply pure hydrogen and apparently lost heaps of money.
The point is that AFAIK from our talk existing hydrogen plants would have to be rebuilt to supply hydrogen of a purity necessary for automotive needs Vs industrial needs.
I don't know if this has changed but often great ideas on the surface can have a hidden "gotcha" that makes them totally impractical.
BTW I had great satisfaction in seeing the first trial induction charging system for cars featured on a NEWS item. When I raised this a couple of years ago on this forum I was roundly flamed for it being impossible.
Things change.
Regards Philip A
Sorry, yes it was contradictory. Probably deliberately :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MR LR
Batteries are a problem to the environment. But does that mean they should never be used?
Back in the early 90s I bought my first mobile phone - a lovely brick it was - most of the weight was the battery. My friend had one in the 80s, came with a briefcase. Now we have our iphones and galaxys etc, with tiny yet more powerful longer lasting batteries (comparatively). The technology advances produce smaller, better, cheaper. (Can we still even buy a classic EverReady Red any more, or are they all alkaline or Lithium-Ion, or NiCd rechargable?)
Electric cars actually go back to the Floken Electowagen in 1880, and were still popular as 'around town' cars till WW1 era. Advances in internal combustion engines saw them phased out. Why not?, IC engines gave more power, more range, were lighter etc etc. Imagine what the batteries were like then. The batteries have already improved from Prius generation 1. (NiMH to Lithium-ion, and now looking at nanophosphate technology to over come the 'explosive' natures) Different manufacturers try different things, different materials. But yes, at the end of the day, batteries are an environmental problem. *IF* the are not disposed of correctly. I don't particularly care about cost at the moment cos I'm not buying an electric car - but like everything that will come down - the manufacturers cannot afford for them not to else it is all a failed experiment. But when the batteries are reprocessed correctly, the problem is removed, or at least significantly reduced. They are not the sort of battery which will just be tossed out in the red bin on a Tuesday night. They will be traded in, returned, whatever and reprocessed correctly. BTW, oil production nor the burning of the same isn't exactly earth friendly either, with little improvement over the years.
So yes, I do support the manufacture of hybrid and electric cars despite their current shortcomings. They are a means to an end. They are not perfected yet but are progressing, and are still suitable for a select driving habit, certainly not everyone...(not me). Hydrogen and supercapacitor cars would be great to see, if they can work out their own problems, but I do wonder if that research would have the same presence now if not for continued development in electric and hybrid technology, or still just a pipe dream???
LPG also is a vast improvement over petrol and diesel and should be encouraged more than it is.
And for those who care, you can drop your household and laptop etc batteries into a container at Officeworks for appropriate disposal :D
[QUOTE=stray dingo;2030481]Sorry, yes it was contradictory. Probably deliberately :)
Batteries are a problem to the environment. But does that mean they should never be used?
Back in the early 90s I bought my first mobile phone - a lovely brick it was - most of the weight was the battery. My friend had one in the 80s, came with a briefcase. Now we have our iphones and galaxys etc, with tiny yet more powerful longer lasting batteries (comparatively). The technology advances produce smaller, better, cheaper. (Can we still even buy a classic EverReady Red any more, or are they all alkaline or Lithium-Ion, or NiCd rechargable?)
Electric cars actually go back to the Floken Electowagen in 1880, and were still popular as 'around town' cars till WW1 era. Advances in internal combustion engines saw them phased out. Why not?, IC engines gave more power, more range, were lighter etc etc. Imagine what the batteries were like then. The batteries have already improved from Prius generation 1. (NiMH to Lithium-ion, and now looking at nanophosphate technology to over come the 'explosive' natures) Different manufacturers try different things, different materials. But yes, at the end of the day, batteries are an environmental problem. *IF* the are not disposed of correctly. I don't particularly care about cost at the moment cos I'm not buying an electric car - but like everything that will come down - the manufacturers cannot afford for them not to else it is all a failed experiment. But when the batteries are reprocessed correctly, the problem is removed, or at least significantly reduced. They are not the sort of battery which will just be tossed out in the red bin on a Tuesday night. They will be traded in, returned, whatever and reprocessed correctly. BTW, oil production nor the burning of the same isn't exactly earth friendly either, with little improvement over the years.
So yes, I do support the manufacture of hybrid and electric cars despite their current shortcomings. They are a means to an end. They are not perfected yet but are progressing, and are still suitable for a select driving habit, certainly not everyone...(not me). Hydrogen and supercapacitor cars would be great to see, if they can work out their own problems, but I do wonder if that research would have the same presence now if not for continued development in electric and hybrid technology, or still just a pipe dream???
LPG also is a vast improvement over petrol and diesel and should be encouraged more than it is.
And for those who care, you can drop your household and laptop etc batteries into a container at Officeworks for appropriate disposal :D[/QU
Sorry Stray Dingo I made a mess of trying to quote your post.
Anyway good post.
Also fuel 100 years ago was almost as cheap as water. But not today as we all know.
Who knows in a couple of decades batteries just might save the car industry.