electric/water powered cars coming yet?

[ElectricFetus]

True, but ultimately irrelevant. We don't have an electric grid that can run all our cars, and no combination of alternative energy sources are adequate to do so at the scale to which we have become accustomed. Which means that instead of working to create the technology to maintain the status quo, we should be planning socially for a way of life that is not built around the automobile.

Incorrect, we could with our existing electric grid charge 80% of our cars without a single new power plant.

Many alternative energy sources could supply all our needs and then some, the amount of sunlight hitting the earth could supply 10,000 times all our present energy needs, its simply a matter of scaling alternative energy production and building infrastructure, which is the hard part, once that is done we could end up with energy prices that are lower then are present oil bing fuel economy.

 

[ElectricFetus]

because than demand for lithium will grow beyond our resources.

The lithium peak is a false scare, lithium reserves when counting for recycling, increase battery storage capacity and unconventional sources like sea water can easily supply all our needs and that when falsely assuming battery will be limited to lithium chemistry.

Also carbon fiber tanks can hold extreme amounts of pressure, just right for hydrogen.

So? When a rupture happens in a car crash and the hydrogen ignites your still fried. Also take into account of much energy is wasted compressing hydrogen to 300 atm.

As for safety demonstration, here is a car with gasoline powered and hydrogen powered burning: http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=482

That a controlled fire, no no show me a tank rupturing in a crash test, better yet show me a hydrogen gas fuel car verses battery electric one.

 

[Skeptical]

Re lithium shortages.

http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp...al=jnst1964&cdvol=17&noissue=12&startpage=922

Also

http://www.lithiumalliance.org/abou...ently-asked-questions-about-lithium?showall=1

I quote :

"There is plenty of lithium available for advanced transportation batteries for the auto industry, and many other uses.
That means in terms of availability, it ranks 33rd in the earth’s crust and 16th in the ocean.
On earth, at 17-20 parts per million, lithium is more abundant than gold, platinum, tantalum, iodine, silver, boron, uranium, tin, cadmium and lead. Where does this leave nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries?
The 2009 edition of the Roskill study of lithium estimates that worldwide lithium reserves total 28,400,000 tonnes of lithium or 150,000,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalents. Reserves in active or proposed operations are estimated to be 14,000,000 tonnes or 74,000,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate. With Roskill estimating current worldwide demand at about 23,000 tonnes of lithium or 122,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalents, there is ample supply, even with double digit growth in demand in the coming years."

 

[spidergoat]

Incorrect, we could with our existing electric grid charge 80% of our cars without a single new power plant.

Many alternative energy sources could supply all our needs and then some, the amount of sunlight hitting the earth could supply 10,000 times all our present energy needs, its simply a matter of scaling alternative energy production and building infrastructure, which is the hard part, once that is done we could end up with energy prices that are lower then are present oil bing fuel economy.

That is the current techno-triumphalist fantasy, but we will are entering a period of energy crisis, and we will not be able to make these massive investments, especially since the world economy depends on cheap energy.

 

[Skeptical]

Spider

If you want to make such a sweeping statement, it needs factual support. I see no problem with investing in new energy sources. We already have nuclear energy. In the pipeline are new tidal, ocean wave, hot rock geothermal, and other major energy sources. It takes 20 years from conception to commission for a nuclear power station, and within 20 years, we should have access to heaps of other technologies also.

 

[ElectricFetus]

That is the current techno-triumphalist fantasy, but we will are entering a period of energy crisis, and we will not be able to make these massive investments, especially since the world economy depends on cheap energy.

Quite likely, but eventually we will pull through, the investment needed won't actually be that great, at least for the rich countries, peak oil is a real problem but its not as likely to be that horrible... you know what you need, some wellbutron.

 

[spidergoat]

We will pull through by redesigning our living arrangements so we don't need cars, wouldn't that be smarter? Isn't planning around the automobile just a product of the automobile industry's marketing departments (and of course, their unfair political influence)?

 

[Skeptical]

spider

Cars are needed. Maybe some of us can do without them, but not me. I suspect that applies to many others also.

I live out of town, 40 minutes drive from the nearest supermarket, and there is no public transport. And, no, I am not going to do it by bicycle.

In addition, there is such a commitment by people to their cars that they aint a gonna get rid of them. Cars are here to stay, and there are very good viable alternatives. In the near future, it will be electric cars. Perhaps later we might get hydrogen fuelled, or biofuel driven vehicles.

 

[ElectricFetus]

We will pull through by redesigning our living arrangements so we don't need cars, wouldn't that be smarter?

Not really considering the cost of redesigning whole cities and transportation systems, Americas stuck with cars, we should start implementing high speed electric trains but it will be decades before they will provide good coverage, in the mean time electric cars will have already taken over.

Isn't planning around the automobile just a product of the automobile industry's marketing departments (and of course, their unfair political influence)?

Probably.

How about this, as we start implementing solar and wind, we are going to need to start storing the intermittent power, electric cars would be both for transport and for grid energy storage, its very efficient that way.

 

[jmpet]

I see gas-driven cars being phased out over the next 50 years. Why? Inevitability- inevitably we will see cars as apps or devices we plug in and charge up.

From a documentary I don't remember... "A gallon gas costs what- three dollars? And for three dollars it will carry a carload of people twenty miles. This is pennies per mile. Now imagine we don't have electricity- what are we going to replace it with- think about it- - imagine a rickshaw and saying to the carrier 'I will pay you three dollars if you go 20 miles down the road'... it's never going to happen. Oil is unique in that regard and it's easy to get hooked on it... but peak oil is inevitable- either it has already happened, it is happening or it will soon happen. Then that? What will we have to replace it??

Electric cars are the wave of the future. And we had a glimpse of it in the 90's in California and it worked.

Of course you can't expect to go 250 miles on a single charge but who the hell goes 250 miles anywhere? It's quite simple- you come home, you charge up and the next morning you drive off.

These things are self evident to me.

 

[science man]

This car runs on nothing but air. It is being sold in India as well as other places.

ok but how fast does it go?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Derek McLeish sets land speed record in compressed air car at 46.723 mph, wow that’s fast isn't it!

Gas still plays a role

The six-seater planned for the U.S. market would be able to reach speeds of more than 90 mph and have a range of more than 800 miles thanks to a dual energy engine, Vencat said.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Derek McLeish sets land speed record in compressed air car at 46.723 mph, wow that’s fast isn't it!

Gas still plays a role

The six-seater planned for the U.S. market would be able to reach speeds of more than 90 mph and have a range of more than 800 miles thanks to a dual energy engine, Vencat said.

LOL! Well my nuclear fusion car can travel at 80km/s and 3 times to the moon and back before it needs refueling!

 

[X-Man2]

The Japanese are serious about getting their energy from solar in space,at least thats what I have read in past articles.If they can make it work eventually, this would be 24/7 sun power.No batteries or storage needed for night time power.If it all goes to plan, the electricity produced will be six times cheaper than current energy costs in Japan and Solar rays are at least five times as powerful in space as they are at ground level.

 

[science man]

The Japanese are serious about getting their energy from solar in space,at least thats what I have read in past articles.If they can make it work eventually, this would be 24/7 sun power.No batteries or storage needed for night time power.If it all goes to plan, the electricity produced will be six times cheaper than current energy costs in Japan and Solar rays are at least five times as powerful in space as they are at ground level.

That would be great. I would love to run everything off of solar energy.

 

[kmguru]

Hydro power

The only way hydro power would work is to breakdown the water to Hydrogen and Oxygen and then use that in an IC engine or turbine that also charges the battery to breakdown the Water. That sounds like a perpetual motion machine.

If you can develop a nuclear battery (well shielded of course) using Uranium Nitride or something like that but miniaturize it such that it is a 200KW to 500KW power plant, you could have a viable option.

A better application of such a power plant would be in an electric train where there is plenty of space to put such a generator that will last 20 years without refueling. Same thing for ships so that massive quantity of diesel can be freed up for non-commercial use.

Google "nuclear battery" before commenting on this.

 

[X-Man2]

Incorrect, we could with our existing electric grid charge 80% of our cars without a single new power plant.

Many alternative energy sources could supply all our needs and then some, the amount of sunlight hitting the earth could supply 10,000 times all our present energy needs, its simply a matter of scaling alternative energy production and building infrastructure, which is the hard part, once that is done we could end up with energy prices that are lower then are present oil bing fuel economy.

And I would think the almost 1 trillion dollars spent on the oil wars thus far would have made a sizable dent in the switching over to renewables.Several other developed countries are moving right along towards renewables while we the US twittle our thumbs.Oh thats right we have no money,were broke! In that case why dont we shut down NASA for now and use that money to start switching over to renewables?

 

[draqon]

In that case why dont we shut down NASA for now and use that money to start switching over to renewables?

NASA is one of the main research partners in renewable energy research.

 

[science man]

Hydro power

The only way hydro power would work is to breakdown the water to Hydrogen and Oxygen and then use that in an IC engine or turbine that also charges the battery to breakdown the Water. That sounds like a perpetual motion machine.

If you can develop a nuclear battery (well shielded of course) using Uranium Nitride or something like that but miniaturize it such that it is a 200KW to 500KW power plant, you could have a viable option.

A better application of such a power plant would be in an electric train where there is plenty of space to put such a generator that will last 20 years without refueling. Same thing for ships so that massive quantity of diesel can be freed up for non-commercial use.

Google "nuclear battery" before commenting on this.

no, I'm afraid of how reactive they are. If I got into a car that was powered by nuclear energy I'd be afraid of it blowing up at any given second.

 

[draqon]

no, I'm afraid of how reactive they are. If I got into a car that was powered by nuclear energy I'd be afraid of it blowing up at any given second.

well nuclear energy can be converted into electricity and than stored in hydrogen inside high-pressure carbon fiber tanks. There are planes powered by hydrogen alone, so a car would work just fine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7330311.stm