Electric cars are a pipe dream

I agree, but I think that there will be enough initial buyers (particularly because of the Gov incentives) for GM to sell as many as then can make and then it a few years hopefully they will have figured out how to drive the price of the techology down.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Technology is not the problem Nissan is selling the Leaf for $5k less, GM is the problem!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the Leaf is a much simpler EV.
The technology behind the Volt is much more complex and thus the specs are also much better.
As the article said, it would take a Leaf a week or more to make that drive.
What's your problem with GM?
Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What GM really wants for the future of the VOLT is a smaller internal combustion engine...possibly a tiny rotary engine like those found in Mazdas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5jV5tHxks&feature=related

 

Yeah the volts is overcomplicated.

Wankel engines make great sports cars engines but not much more, they have seal problems and the like. For a generator purpose in a serial electric hybrid a micro-turbine engine is optimal, it could run on any fuel, is far simpler then most engines and with recuperator would be more efficient then a gasoline engine. Turbines never became viable for cars because of their horrible acceleration performance but as a generator they have much greater potential.

 

Is there any micro turbine generator on the market?

 

Yes.

http://www.capstoneturbine.com/prodsol/products/

 

I think you guys have the wrong idea. GreenNH3.com is a working green fuel. It is peer reviewed by more than one university. (Ontario, Michigan, U of Iowa) Using NH3 in vehicles is not new,, What is new is making the fuel out of air and water,,The guy that owns it is older and like me not very good at computers,and dosent have much money I think, On the website it dosent say anything about wanting donations??? Yes you would think some country would have grabbed up the technology. He does drive around for low cost and it dosent make any pollution. Before you go too far you should look close at the website.It does tell of his synthesis machine and vehicles he has converted and such. Countries dont buy out technology but, I too cant believe some big entity hasnt bought him out or helped him out. Dont underestimate the power of BigOil, I think he needs help or direction, not pounding.

 

Ammonia has be researched for decades as a fuel, there are no new patents or new ideas for it, we understand its potential and its problems very well.

 

NOT NEW: Large industries were making NH3 from air and water long before you were born!

My post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2634222&postcount=80 was trying to educate you a little; So I quoted source teaching about NH3 production, which started as:

That was more than 100 years ago. So it is only ignorance of the history of NH3 production that allows you to say your false and now bold statement above.

SUMMARY: Making NH3 from air and water is NOT new. That is how it was done more than 100 years ago, but the process evolve to become more economical.

Please read the rest of my post 80. I'm trying to help you to stop making false statements out of ignorance.

GreenNH3.com is either a scam, stealing from the ignorant or staffed by well meaning people as ignorant as you.

 

greenNH3.com not made from carbon

but this GreenNh3.com guy does not use carbon of any type to make the NH3 so he does not contribute to global warming and is completely self sufficient for fuel and N fertilizer on his farm. He makes the electric power from a windturbine but think that latenight offpeak electric might be a good priced alternative.

 

Here's a decent summary article on it.

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2010/02/16/can-ammonia-aka-nh3-be-a-fuel/

Arthur

 

It is environmentally better not to use Carbon -That is what was done more than 100 years ago but, living in the real world getting the needed 3Hs for each molecule of NH3 is much cheaper if They come from methane, CH4 instead of electrolysis of water. (I assume that is what his wind machine is doing.)

Even if you have N2 and H2 pure it is not easy to make them into NH3. High pressures and temperatures are required (and catalysts to make the formation conditions not be so extreme and costly)

Why don't you educate yourself a little about the production of NH3 - it has progressed a lot in the hundred + years since it was made from air and water. I have given you a good link for this in my last post. Here is another on the production, designed to be simple enough for a high school student: http://www.ausetute.com.au/haberpro.html

Where you can read the basic requirements:
In 1909 Fritz Haber established the conditions under which nitrogen, N2(g), and hydrogen, H2(g), would combine using

medium temperature (~500 C)
very high pressure (~250 atmospheres, ~25,500kPa)
a catalyst (a porous iron catalyst prepared by reducing magnetite, Fe3O4).
Osmium is a much better catalyst for the reaction but is very expensive.

This process produces an ammonia, NH3(g), yield of approximately 10-20%.

Also explained there are the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS for this chemical reaction, which GreenNH3.com can not change:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"... At 200 C and pressures above 750atm there is an almost 100% conversion of reactants to the ammonia product.
{When the equilibrium concentrations shown in the graph are finally reached - the reaction is slow at these lower temperatures.}

Since there are difficulties associated with containing larger amounts of materials at this high pressure, lower pressures of around 200 atm are used industrially.

By using a pressure of around 200atm and a temperature of about 500 C, the yield of ammonia is 10-20%, while costs and safety concerns in the building and during operation of the plant are minimised ..."


If you prefer to just remain ignorant, just say so and save me from any more effort trying to help you.

 

An 80 mile range light electric vehicle is here. For $8,995.

http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/2011-brammo-enertia-plus-preview-90057.html

 

The 63 MPH top speed is a tad disappointing.
Even in my normal cross town driving, I'd feel underpowered on the short stretches of Interstate I use. Who needs a big Mack pushing up your ass at 75 MPH when you can only do 63 and that's if you aren't heading into a wind.

Nope, still not ready for prime time.

Arthur

 

It's fine for most commutes. I don't have to go above 55 to get to work.

The Brammo Empulse goes to 100mph with a 100 mile range, depending on battery choice. But it's more expensive.
http://electrovelocity.com/2010/07/16/the-brammo-empulse/#more-1370

 

Wait... doesn't the nitrogen cycle employ this type of effect at a much lower temperature... Probably all that electricity tho....

 

Something wrong with that design. Why would I want to go by 60 mph when I can only do 80 miles altogether? It is obviously only good as a commuting toy, and unless the commuting includes highways, there is no need to go that high.
Also, its look is more sporty, but again, it is for short distances, so you can't really do a poker run with it.
One can get a little moped for what, 3-4K? I couldn't find how long the charging takes, I would want it under 2 hours...

Here, for 1/10th of the price, you get the exact same characteristics with a gas one:

http://www.happyscooters.com/150cc-Classic-Vespa-Style-Moped-Scooter-p-440.html

 

Here, for non-highways commuting, only $600, max. speed is 38 mph, it probably does 60+ miles a gallon. 50 cc, 5 HP:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.saferwholesale.com/50cc-Slick-Scooter-p/50cc slick scooter.htm

 

Can't see anyone putting this in a CAR though.

http://www.capstoneturbine.com/_docs/datasheets/C30 NatGas_331031D_lowres.pdf

Got some COST figures on these Microturbines?
Cause they have always been pretty damn expensive, nor are they necessarily approved for installation in something that expericences the shocks of driving.

Arthur