electric/water powered cars coming yet?

Sure. So your argument is that if the gasoline car gets expensive enough, we will use the electric?
By the way the advance in battery technology was already noted, but our demand also advanced (speed,safety,extras) thus the range unchanged. Fancy stuff like heat also uses electricity. I assume you like your car heated and AC would be also nice...

See above. Otherwise feel free to join me for a formal debate, I already started it.
Unless we can improve price,range and charging, fully electric cars will stay the same as they were 100 years ago, a niche market for toy lovers...

P.S.: Similarly, gasmileage doesn't seem to be improving either. We had very fuel efficient cars in the 1980s, but once we start to add extra features, (and they all use energy) the efficiency improvement is being used up...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its not that we have not tried we are just limited by chemistry. And what your point with heating and AC, your saying electric cars don't have heating and AC? An AC system is going to need anywhere between 500-1500W, out of a 24Kwh battery the air conditioning would drain the batteries in 48-16 hours, if the car has a driving range of 100 miles, you would run the battery dry driving at highways speed in less then two hours, so in rough comparison the AC will be taking less then a 1/10 your range.

Not my thing.

sort of like smart phones eeeh? The only limitation I see is the need to improve pricing and I think Tesla strategy of starting out with the nich market of sports cars and working its way down as infrastructure builds from the adopters is the way to go about it, its does not mean they will be stuck in that market. As for range and charging, once people start getting use to it, it will have its advantages, such as no more gas stations, reduce maintenance, etc, "why would people switch from buttons to touch screens" you say, "they have no tactile response and they smudge up, we can't implement touch screens until those problems are fixed" yeah to late.

There certain fundamental limits in efficiency to go against.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How long does it take to charge these things? My guess is that right now it happens at home and the EV is just a commuting device. Sure, if a family is fine having 2 cars (most families with kids do) one might as well be electric. Although the 2nd one is also going to be city driving, so there isn't too much savings there...

Now going on a roadtrip with an electric is still not feasable. I would want at least 200 miles range if the charging takes hours, or a 20-30 minutes charge, where it is done by the time I finished my lunch...

Again, inspite of the big push I don't see it happening in this decade...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Depends on the electric lines you got, for example the Tesla charge time with 480V at 80 Amps is 45 minutes.

 

There are amazing developments in battery technology going on right now. A lot of this is due to nanotech. This permits amazing increases in surface area of electrodes.

Right now, in the laboratory, is a lithium battery that 80% recharges in 5 minutes. Right now, in a different laboratory, is a lithium battery with much greater energy density.

These technologies combined and developed into a commercial product (give it 10 years) will permit an electric car with a range of 400 to 500 kms and a recharge time that will be complete before you have finished drinking your cup of coffee.

Electric cars in the near future will have the limits already mentioned. In 10 years?????

 

“…China may be able to lock up much of the world's proven oil supplies and meet it oil needs for the decade or so it requires to switch to nature gas and electric vehicles - already via BYD a world leader in Li-ion Batteries.

China also controls ~95% of the world's supply of Rare Earth elements, some of which are essential for the batteries and magnets in motors these electric vehicles need to be light and efficient: "Each electric Prius motor requires 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) of neodymium, and each battery uses 10 to 15 kg (22-33 lb) of lanthanum. That number will nearly double under Toyota's plans to boost the car's fuel economy." From: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57U02B20090831

They are needed for magnetic levitation trains too. - There is a reason why China has the only one in the world in routine commercial service. The hard drive in your compute uses a neodymium magnet and China has announced it will be cutting exports in half, and probably ceasing entirely soon as internal demand is rapidly growing. China has Uncle Sam by the balls in more than one way. (Financially, Rare Earths, and locked up oil and mineral supplies) …”

Last part of footnote here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2545840&postcount=47

 

Remember back in the 80s when they created the new "warm" superconducting material? It simply need to be cooled by readily available, and relatively cheap liquid nitrogen. They were celebrating the dawn of a new era: superconductive power transmission lines, maglev passenger trains, ultrafast communication networks...

Notice we have none of those items? (There are 3 maglev trains in operation, and maybe a dozen more planned, unless the slumping economy has killed them. None seem to use superconductive material) Once they started producing the superconductive ceramic in large sizes (no longer producing lab sized test pieces), they noticed it was no longer superconductive. There were areas in it that caused the electric flow to spike and stop flowing. Just because it works in the lab doesn't mean it will translate to real life.

I have a 15 mile, one way commute to work. I "play" & run errands in about a 10 mile semicircle from there. The real entertainment is 60-80 miles from home. Family is about 110 miles away. If you want me to buy an electric car, it had better have an onboard generator.

I looked at the "rapid recharger" for the Nissan Leaf: $45,000 for the unit. I believe that is more than the planned cost of the car.

I keep trying to imagine what recharging stations would look like across the country. Gas stations are pretty big right now, even if they have only 6-8 pumps. And you are spending only minutes there refilling your tank. How big will a station be when it takes hours per car? How much over the electric rate do you think they will charge?

Electric vehicles have been in production for decades, but no one thinks of them as electric. They are all electric, but they carry their own diesel powered generator to produce the needed electricity.

And, nuclear powered ships...are you nuts?!? The US government & UN wants to control what countries can build nuclear power plants. There is no way in hell that either party would allow a privately owned nuclear reactor to roam the seas.

 

You know just in case you actually want to get out into the countryside...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The 2 posters above me made valid points, material for the batteries might not be aviable in the future and what might be 100 on paper or under lab circumstances can be 50 on the road..

 

Let me get this straight, even if electric cars replaced 80% of cars, because some trucks and semi-trucks and what not would be running on petroleum or a biofuel, electric cars would be for nothing?

The battery performance state for electric cars is the performance for electric cars, I'm not citing laboratory values here.

I would not say it likely but it is possible to have ships with cassette reactors controlled by regulators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taymyr_(icebreaker)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station

 

Please read
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2547626#post2547626

 

Quote

"And, nuclear powered ships...are you nuts?!? The US government & UN wants to control what countries can build nuclear power plants. There is no way in hell that either party would allow a privately owned nuclear reactor to roam the seas."

Money talks! Toshiba of Japan has a design for a nuclear reactor that it will put in place for a small town, and remove in its entirety when the fuel is used up. Why should not the USA (or France, or Japan etc) make money by selling a modular nuclear reactor for ships? It could be manned by approved personnel and removed completely for servicing or at the end of its useful life.

 

yes but how well can you trust those tanks?

 

ElectricFetus gave several valid reason why not here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2542604&postcount=18

I just want to add that recharge by solar cells mounted on the car is neither and adequate energy source on sunny days (and totally impractical on average day or night drive) That is barely adequate for a golf cart and even then of questionable economics, even when some credit is given for the PR value of "being green."

Also I don’t know but suspect that inaddtion to the overall inefficiency she pointed out via nuclear power recharge there is the question of weight. I suspect that Li-ion battery can store more energy / pound of system than a hydrogen tank can. My computer’s li-ion battery is rated at 11.1V and 4Amp hours and weights less than a pound. That is 44.4x60x60 = 160,000 joules. As it is small compared to car battery the case is much larger part of the weight.

Thus without much effort I am confident a car sized battery can give at least 2E5 Joules/ pound delivered to the electric motor. Can you do as well when the fuel tank and fuel cell weight and inefficiencies are included? Give an example with real numbers as I have. If you prefer assume an IC engine and its weight excess over the equal HP electric motor and its <40% efficiency.(Electric motors would be rated for the cruising power and can supply much greater power briefly for passing etc.)

PS Your storing the energy to make hydrogen in "chemical means" is obviously a ridiculous idea. Making H2 cheaply takes electrical energy and has loses. Just send the electrical energy to the electric motors of the car and forget about making hydrogen.

 

yes but how do we haul those electric cars ?

you guys can talk and dream about electric cars till oil runs out,, meanwhile there is a guy in canada completely self sufficient for green sustainable fuel and it costs him next to nothing. ( no not biofuel, that takes food for fuel and still spews carbon) He runs his cars and trucks and tractors on GreenGas.cc Seems to me like the answer is here, and all that is needed is adoptors.

 

Only some biofuels require food corps. Ammonia is energy intensive to make (inefficient) if your making it from natural gas you might as well just run the engine on natural gas instead. Also ammonia is wickedly noxious and is certainly more hazardous to handle then gasoline. Also ammonia combustion performance has a variety of poor qualities, though a direct ammonia alkaline fuel cell would be advantageous verse a hydrogen fuel cell.

 

ElectricFetus: I think you are a mod. if so read my just made post in the "action requested" tread. This guy and his double, MrGreeen (yes green with 3 "e") are making scam posts to collect money from the ignorant via Sciforums.

MrGreeen has made 6 identical posts in different threads all referencing either GreenGas.cc or GreenNH3.com but they link to the same site. They are trying to collect $100 from foolish / ignorant investors.

If not a Mod, look at all the posts by each.

 

Oh I was a mod, I resigned years ago, I sort of noticed he was a problem with his replicate posts on the other thread, ban him if you will.

 

no he does not use carbon sources to make his fuel.

Sorry Mr Fetus, I am an older person, not very computer saavy and only wishing to help get the world off carbon before I leave it. No he does not use carbon to make his fuel, and no he is not looking for your $100. Please look at the GreenGas.cc website and you will see the guy is making his fuel without using carbon. and it costs him very little.. I do not believe he has any backers, or world domination plans, but does offer a solution to giving our money to BigOil. I only mentioned that he needs investors cause it says it at the front of his webpage. Oh and yes a fuel cell would also be much safer using NH3 instead of hydrogen which is very dangerous.. (no company will insure hydrogen). But at present the biggest fuel cell we can find is 10kw. I know you could run multiples. Rather than trying to block people who are trying to help others, why dont you help others, other littleguys. Unless you work for BigOil ?? just kidding..

 

Ammonia might not be very flammable but it is very toxic, and it very inefficient to make ammonia, be it from fossil fueless energy sources or not.

 

The part of this I made bold, both claims, is surely false as explained below.

Welcome to sciforums. You sound like a well intentioned person. Here is the end of my post in the mod only thread “action requested”

“Rogerg's first post, made more than a year ago, is here:http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=128
It deals with same subject but is not blatant spam. It does, however, mention GreenNH3.com which leads you to the exact same site as GreenGas.cc
Stomp on MrGreeen for sure but Rogerg may just be ignorant. If we stomp on the just ignorant, 2/3 of our posters would be gone.”

MrGreeem has been permanently banned. I don’t mean any insult by suggesting that you were “just ignorant.” (I am ignorant of many things.)

Certainly you are correct that NH3 as a fuel does not release any carbon, but its most economical production method now does. I STRONG DOUBT the people behind GreenGas.cc = GreenNH3.com web site have a new and cheaper way to make NH3 which does not also release CO2 as this is a huge tonnage commercial product, originally a great chemical “break thru” by Haber. His process has had millions, (possible a billion?) of dollars invested improving it for slightly more than 100 years. Read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

GreenGas.com does not even hint that they have any improvement. IMHO they are a scam trying to exploit well intentioned people like you. I hope you have not sent them the $100 requested.

Below are some facts to enlighten you about the production of NH3, but first I want to note that H2, is not really a fuel, but more of a way to transport the energy of some more primary energy source. IMHO, it is impractical as a car fuel, but probably less of a hazard than gasoline as if there is a leak the H2 rises up and disperses in the air. NH3 will do this too to a lesser extent but is very toxic, not to mention extremely irritating.

Quoting from: http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2006/09/27/ammonia-and-biofuels/

“As originally practiced, the N2 for the Haber Process was readily obtained by cryogenic air distillation. The H2 could be obtained by electrolysis of water, which would make very pure H2 high quality feed with relative ease. This process was extensively practiced in Norway by Norsk Hydro (and its predecessors), and was also used in North America (for example, at Trail, British Columbia, on the Columbia River, 15 miles north of the border) by Airco (now BOC). The H2 could also be made by the water gas reaction using coal or petroleum, but the resulting syn-gas had to be extensively cleaned up of ash, sulfur, arsenic, CO, CO2, and other chemical “varmints”. In fact, the H2 purification part of the site would be one of the largest and most expensive parts of an NH3 plant.

As the 20th century rolled on, methane became the H2 source of choice, as it was really cheap, readily available and easy to use compared to coal. The water gas reaction is endothermic, so energy must be supplied in the form of steam (water feed) and just plain heat to drive the reaction; carbon is removed eventually as CO and/or CO2, and any CO can be readily oxidized to provide more energy for this process. In other words, preparing NH3 from CH4 also involves the co-production of CO2. …

Nowadays it is around $450/ton, and a considerable amount of U.S. NH3 production has been shut down. We now import a lot of NH3 from places like Trinidad, which have more Ngas than they can readily consume, and cheap local Ngas prices. … At one time in the recent past, NH3 consumption on the farm was about 12 million/tons/yr, out of 14 million tons/yr produced. To make all 14 million tons/yr of NH3, about 2.47 million tons/yr of H2 must be prepared and purified (or just prepared and dried in the case of electrolysis). To make 1 ton of H2 using industrial scale electrolysis units requires about 45 MW-hr.

So, if electrolysis units operate at 8700 hr/yr, a steady rate of about 72.5 GW of electricity would be needed, requiring 194 GW of wind turbine capacity, or 77,600 x 2.5 MW wind turbines operating at an average capacity of 37.5 % to make all the H2 needed to make all the NH3 used in the USA. {Author has suggested that wind power from the mid west is better used to make NH3 than ship either electricity or H2 to the city load centers.} Is there room in the Midwest for 77,600 turbines (each one occupies about 1/16 acre for the (largely) buried foundation)? What is 5% of U.S. Ngas consumption worth, especially 10 years from now?...

But the H2 preparation for NH3 synthesis will not be changed until fossil fuel prices rise, and the external costs of this fossil fuel consumption are reflected in the price. And the same goes for other Ngas consuming activities. On a raw material basis, the breakeven point is for a delivered price of natural gas at $11.60/MBtu (not Henry Hub!) and wind turbine electricity at 5 c/kw-hr delivered. ..."

SUMMARY: There an environmentally more friendly way to make the H2 (via very many wind machines) required for making NH3, but it is currently not as cheap as using coal or natural gas.