Electric cars are a pipe dream

Well then all you are doing is questioning Billvon's use of "reserves" to mean the sum of Proven reserves of 284 trillion cubic feet, as well as the sum of the nation’s probable, possible and speculative reserves.

Normally though I just use Proved Reserves myself.

But since proved reserves continue to grow there is no good reason to think the number is overstated.

http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/cr.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, and that's an advantage of EV's as well. An additional advantage of compressed air is that you can compress it during off-peak, store it onsite and then use it for "refueling" later. (Although transfilling results in more loss of energy, since you can't just "swap" the contents of the vehicle and stationary tanks.)

An interesting variant of this were steam switching locomotives that used insulated tanks to store live steam. They'd be pressurized in the morning, used for a few hours to move train cars around then recharged as needed. That way the boiler, fuel source etc could be stationary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More on surging availablity of cheap NG:

“… The EIA raised eyebrows in April 2011 after releasing a study* that estimated technically recoverable shale gas resources in 32 countries at 5,760 trillion cubic feet. According to this report, Argentina boasts the world's third-largest unconventional gas resource; roughly half this 774 trillion cubic feet worth of natural gas is potentially located in the Neuquen Basin, an area in west-central Argentina that includes the provinces of La Pampa, Mendoza, Neuquen and Rio Negro. …”

Quote from: Yahoo mail to me, but

*Read study here: http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/?cigx=d.kac,stid.18676,sid.250664,lid.11,mid.8616

Also note that this data is BEFORE the huge new field off E. Africa was proven. – see more on it in post 2507 at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2909091&postcount=2507

With so much CONVENTIONAL natural gas very recently been found, in a few years, the US´s huge “technically recoverable shale gas resources” may be neither “economically recoverable” nor conform to evolving environmental laws.”

Few speak of the huge release of CH4 dissolved the back flow water that brings up the oil or what to do with this huge volume of very dirty water (now just held in artificial lakes). I own stock in ESPH which can clean up this dirty water for re-injection without using Chemicals and has started to do so more economically at a few fracking oil well sites, with their moble trailer units. See how they do that here: http://www.hydrozonix.com/technology/hydrozonix-ef60

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've long feared brake dust as a health hazard, yet I don't think brush dust would be bad that way. The time I saw brush dust was in that abusive electric lawn mower. I wonder why she had so much trouble. I suspect they were not properly limiting current to her motor, probably to push acceleration to the limit. I guess her starting acceleration went down with the new system since brushed motors generally have higher stall torque.

I built an electric bicycle and the brushed motor has always worked very well. I've never had a power tool show any brush trouble at all. Golf carts have long used brushed motors, and I wonder how they've done. Thanks for the report. I think you have made the point well that an electric car for the masses is going to be much more tricky to make than an improved golf cart. I'm pretty bummed about that and it leads me to doubt that automobile driving will enter into my future again. I miss it, yet I'm just tired of the complexities of gasoline engines.

 

You know for most of us we just turn the key and put our foot down.

The complexities of the engine just don't seem to matter.

 

It matters to me, but I guess you're right, most people don't seem to care. I see cars as being just for the rich, even though the public doesn't see that yet. I suspect that the realization will eventually take hold that people let the idea of convenient personal transportation for everyone get away and the momentum of tradition has been lost. I hope it works out better than that because the trouble of waiting for the school bus is etched in my memory. People should have better than that.

I perceive that you have a big stake in automobiles, somehow, and I hope it all works out well.

 

I was thinking it could obtain initial use in the US (where the current version won't be street legal) for purposes such as golf-courses, air-port shuttles, and other off-road use where people/baggage transportation is required. Down the road, I would imagine they would beef-it-up to make it street legal in the US, which will raise the cost, but they should still be able to make it fairly light. And if it costs 5-fold ($12.45 for 185 miles), that's still much better than a 20 mpg gas car ($3.20 for 20 miles as is typical for US cars). I suspect the cost will go down as the number of vehicles increases, too. I can't wait to see the motorcycles using this!

What's great is that it is infra-structure ready. All that gas stations will need is an appropriate compressor and storage tank. And maybe a little instruction to the user on how to make a good compressed-air connection - no room for sloppy connections. But that's true with compressed LNG, too.

 

You haven't given me a reason I should care.
Indeed, my vehicle's engine is more complex then the ones I used to work at under the shade tree, but then it is also a lot more reliable. The vehicle itself is far more comfortable and safe as well.

Guess not, and seeing as one can get a decent new car with a 100,000 mile/10 year warranty for $13,000 it's hard to reconcile that assessment.

I have zero stake in automobiles, nor their manufacturers or the suppliers of their fuel/parts/repair or insurance.

I work out of my house and I put relatively few miles on my 10 year old truck each year (I'm averaging about 6,000 miles now)

 

Oh, she can spin the tires now! I'll see if I can attach a video.

Note that that's not a characteristic of the motor type, rather of the selection of a motor that is rated to the power you want. You can definitely build brushed motors to get whatever power you want, but they're always going to be bigger (due to the mechanics of the brushes) a little dirtier (due to the eroding brushes) a little less efficient (due to arcing and increased resistance) and harder to do regenerative braking on (due to an unchangeable phase angle and base speed.)

I did too - but the power in those motors was around 400 watts. I have an ebike now that will give me 1300 watts with a brushless motor, and I much prefer it. Part of that is the power (which you could get with a brushed motor) and part of it is the ability to regen instead of using the brakes (which you can't easily do with a brushed motor.)

 

My early vehicles were more reliable. The last four were more trouble and had more go wrong. More complexity/parts means there is more that can break. If present vehicles were simpler, that should generally increase reliability compared to something more complex.

For most people, that is a lot of money. Time has value too, warranty servicing is inconvenient.

The cost of using the truck could feel less if it is used in your business.

 

Really? My first car was a 1973 Datsun. I was always working on that thing. Plugs would get fouled, points would go, timing would go out of adjustment, gas gauge would start reading badly, speedometer cable would squeak etc. In winter it often needed push starting even when the battery was OK. There were half a dozen holes rusted in it by the time it retired. It was all fixable but I wouldn't call it very reliable.

My latest car is a 2006 Prius. 120,000 miles and no problems yet beyond someone rear-ending it.

Depends. An electronic ignition module (complex) is generally more reliable than a set of points (simple.) A fuel injector (complex) is generally more reliable than a carburetor (simple.)

 

I believe you about the burn-outs. The controller must do a good job. Did you mean it is an AC induction motor?

I built mine completely from scratch and used a Pittman servo motor. I designed the controller and charger in a single unit, and the controller boosts the voltage from 12V to over 40V. I wanted the cost to be minimal. I built my first one 16 years ago, and I still don't like any other ones better than my homemade one. It's only a few hundred watts of assist, but that is all I want and it helps that it propels the cranks and benefits from the gears.

I'm considering regenerative braking on a friction drive system, and that is a major goal, to save wear on the brakes. I agree about the brushless motor being better for that, but I decided if I try it, it will have to be with one of my brushed ones. I would make a controller from scratch for it and I wouldn't enjoy doing it for a brushless.

 

Just look at the length of the warranties now available on a new car.

5 years/100,000 mile powertrain warranty is common. 10years/100,000 miles by a few.

Far longer than they use to be.

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=buy&subject=warranty&story=manWarranty

Well it also does a lot, and since 60% of US Households make over $36,000 per year, so for this majority of households, paying for this car represents less than 10% of their income.

Waiting for the bus every day is probably far more inconvenient.

 

My '79 Honda civic was my favorite car. It was the middle car in the series of ones I had and it needed about medium maintenance compared to ones before and after. Once I made a transistor point bypass from some of the high voltage RCA 2N3055 transistors, the ignition problem from burnt points was taken care of.

 

Yes

The first one I used had two motors on the same axle and a 12 volt battery. You could put the motors in series or parallel; that was the only control. About as simple as you can get.

I'm surprised you built a boost converter for yours. That requires at least one power switch and a relatively large inductor along with diodes, a controller, capacitors etc. and seems to be going in the opposite direction as "simple."

Hmm. You'd either need two boost converters for that or one boost with a switching arrangement to change the direction of the converter. And that's definitely doable, but at that point you're close to the complexity of a BLDC controller.

 

I recall Chrysler/Dodge starting the long warranties to build public confidence after its financial rescue.

I agree that people shouldn't have to go without the time and luggage convenience of private transportation.

 

I got the benefit of a single 12V battery and the charger transformer was double-purposed for the motor boost/controller.

I'm hoping if the voltage is 12 yet the motor normally operates off a much higher voltage, boost wouldn't be needed for the regen. That's my present thought.

 

Again thanks to PM from X-Man2 I know:

"AT&T since the company embarked on a 10- year commitment of up to $565 million to deploy approximately 15,000 alternative fuel vehicles through 2018, including one of the largest U.S. corporate commitments to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to date.

AT&T deployed the 5,000th vehicle, a CNG van, in Palmdale, California. ... we’ve invested in the deployment of thousands of advanced technology vehicles that promote cleaner air, use less fuel and help AT&T lower its operating costs,” said Jerome Webber, vice president, AT&T Global Fleet Operations. “While some may see just another car or truck on the road, we think these vehicles represent the shared values of the communities where we live, work and play.”

Through 2013, AT&T anticipates it will have purchased up to 8,000 CNG vehicles at an estimated cost of $350 million. Additionally, over the life of the commitment, AT&T expects to invest $215 million to replace approximately 7,100 fleet passenger cars with alternative-fuel models. ..."

Source: Gas 2.0 (http://s.tt/15VxU)

Billy T comment: Just AT&T alone may buy about as many CNG vehicles as any one EV company makes EV sales in the US. Hard to believe that natural gas is not the vehicle fuel of the future when a couple of large companies get on board with volume production of NG cars and its lower prices.

 

This statement appears to be a typo: Through 2013, AT&T anticipates it will have purchased up to 8,000 CNG vehicles at an estimated cost of $350 million.

That date is actually 2018 according to AT&T.

http://www.att.com/gen/corporate-citizenship?pid=17899

So far they have but 3,400 CNG vehicles, all trucks.
Their passenger fleet AFVs are Hybrids (1,600)

When they are done, about 10% of their fleet will be CNG.

 

BillyT: Agreed, CNG is better than gasoline, and cheaper. As I mentioned, I drove a truck fueled with CNG in the early 1970s. The vehicle yard had a large tank of CNG, from which we tanked up our trucks with a screw-on coupling. This was cheaper than gasoline back then, and the economies have continued to improve.

CNG comes straight out of the ground, and does not need refining like oil does into gasoline/diesel. And, there is a lot of it. I used to drill wells looking for it (and finding it, for example, in the Bayou Pigeon field of Louisiana).

But I do believe that the better way still, just around the corner, will be the air-powered cars in which oil/CNG is burned to produce electricity to power the air-compressors. Eventually, we'll decide that it is cheaper to use hydro-electric/nuclear to power the compressors, and use the oil/CNG for manufacturing and specialty uses. And then we can put those sugar-cane fields in Brazil back into forest land!