alternative fuel

[smelltheglove]

Yeah, so subway trains don't work. Best get the word out to all the major cities in the world so they can start demolition.

how trains came in was something i brought up about trains being used to transport cars + driver for long trips, almost like a ferry. in this regard he is absolutely correct

[BoomChickn]

Ehhhh hydrogen can't be a fuel source. The energy you get from combusting it or using it in a fuel cell is outweighed by the power it takes to zap it from water. It can be reformed from fossil fuel... but then its nonrenewable. Really it is more of a transfer medium, rather than a source.
Still usable in cars though!

As for a fuel source... Solar. But not the cells. The one form where they use mirrors to focus light (and heat) on a pipe full of fluid, which is piped to the plant to evaporate water to run a turbine.

But if they improve PV cells they might become better because direct transfer.

[Reeve]

We built the system when no one was using it, and we added on over the decades. The system that we have now is TONS bigger, and it is in heavy use. Its different to build a new bridge when no one needs it, than to retrofit an old bridge that is currently in heavy use.

Yeah, we built the highway system when demand was nascent. We would also build the third rail system a little at a time in the same way. Lay down the rail in a few major cities first, along the major corridors, and as demand increases, add it to the longer distance roadways. I'm not suggesting that we completely retrofit the entire freeway system overnight. I'm suggesting that over time it's something that would certainly be possible.

It would be a MUCH better idea to have the 3rd rail as an overhead line. More complex engineering from the cars, but much safer and easier to build. It will still never ever ever happen when current technology has -decent- batteries, and gas cars are so clean.

I don't think an overhead line would be as able to withstand the speeds cars would need to be able to travel at on freeways, but I'd obviously let the engineers make that call. I suspect the overhead lines would have a hard time getting implemented due to concerns that they're ugly as hell. Oh, and current battery technology is not -decent- for automotive use on a large scale.

[smelltheglove]

I don't think an overhead line would be as able to withstand the speeds cars would need to be able to travel at on freeways, but I'd obviously let the engineers make that call. I suspect the overhead lines would have a hard time getting implemented due to concerns that they're ugly as hell.

id be more concerned about weather or other issues bringing down lines. but then i live in the country where all power lines are above ground, so i live with that concern

[Reeve]

id be more concerned about weather or other issues bringing down lines. but then i live in the country where all power lines are above ground, so i live with that concern

Yeah, there are a lot of reasons overhead would be tough to implement. Not only that, but if one line comes down, it could create an unfortunate web over the freeway at an inopportune time.

[anothdae]

Yeah, there are a lot of reasons overhead would be tough to implement. Not only that, but if one line comes down, it could create an unfortunate web over the freeway at an inopportune time.

This brings up another problem of the 3rd rail on the ground... weather. What happens when it rains? Floods? Snows? What about mud? Having it on the ground seems like a nightmare.

To be fair, above ground still has huge problems as well, which is why i think that we should not run live wires all across the US.

---------- Post added 2012-08-15 at 03:42 AM ----------

Yeah, we built the highway system when demand was nascent. We would also build the third rail system a little at a time in the same way. Lay down the rail in a few major cities first, along the major corridors, and as demand increases, add it to the longer distance roadways. I'm not suggesting that we completely retrofit the entire freeway system overnight. I'm suggesting that over time it's something that would certainly be possible.

Oh, and current battery technology is not -decent- for automotive use on a large scale.

You arent going to get a radical car redesign based on a few cities having it. Either way, city travel is not the issue, you need the electric lines for long distances. Either way, whatever, its not going to happen, so I am not going to argue about it.


Current battery tech is decent. The Tesla can go over 200 miles on a charge. Yes, its over a hundred grand, but it also does 0-60 faster than a Ferrari. The Prius has proven that commercial batteries can be made well, last a reasonable amount of time, and be cheapish to recondition. Are the Prius batteries anywhere close to the roadsters? No, but the point is that companies can and do make decent batteries for cars.

EDIT: The new tesla can go 265 (EPA) miles, and is right at/under 100k. The battery is warrantied for 100kmiles/8years.

Are current batteries good enough for a truck? No. Are they good enough for compact run-around-town cars? Yeah.

[Masark]

Are current batteries good enough for a truck? No. Are they good enough for compact run-around-town cars? Yeah.

A truck isn't any real problem from a technical point of view. Actually easier as you have all that bed space to stick battery under. Or all that space under the hood if you use in-wheel motors.

Furthermore, electric motors give epic amounts of torque (protean's F-150 demo conversion would do over 1400 ft-lbs continuous and peaks at over 2300. Compare that to the 390 ft-lbs peak you'd get out of the stock truck.) from standstill to get things moving, and regenerative braking gives you a big boost to braking power to make it stop moving, both very nice things for moving heavy loads.

The issue is that you'll want all that battery space filled (also as maximum current (and thus the aforementioned torque) is proportional to battery size, in addition to range) and that much battery is expensive.

[Requiem4aDr3am]

Hydrogen is about as dangerous as gas only it doesn't pool up and just disipates quickly if there is a leak. The byproduct from using hydrogen as a fuel is water so its environmentally safe as well. Hydrogen is also easy to obtain. Electric cars just aren't viable...they end up being worse than gas because it takes so long to charge up plus battery cars etc have hydrogen as a byproduct in them anyways! what do you guys think happens when batteries make that electric charge? Hydrogen is perfectly safe for use in vehicles and would already be the fuel of choice if not for the oil tycoons using smear campaigns making people worry about hydrogen exploding cars. Just need to get those oil guys interested in hydrogen production...show them the money and they will use their influence to make the change.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I voted electric because I remember reading something about hydrogen indicating that it wasn't a very good focus for future fuel when compared to electric and cleaner energy sources (solar).

This was a really long time ago, though.

[anothdae]

A truck isn't any real problem from a technical point of view. Actually easier as you have all that bed space to stick battery under. Or all that space under the hood if you use in-wheel motors.

Furthermore, electric motors give epic amounts of torque (protean's F-150 demo conversion would do over 1400 ft-lbs continuous and peaks at over 2300. Compare that to the 390 ft-lbs peak you'd get out of the stock truck.) from standstill to get things moving, and regenerative braking gives you a big boost to braking power to make it stop moving, both very nice things for moving heavy loads.

The issue is that you'll want all that battery space filled (also as maximum current (and thus the aforementioned torque) is proportional to battery size, in addition to range) and that much battery is expensive.

You forget that even if you have the space, the batteries will weight ~35x an equivalent amount of fuel. So comparing a full gas tank truck to its equivalent battery operated... the battery one is 61 thousand pounds heavier. 61. Thousand. The legal load limit is 80,000.

Yes, you can save weight since your engines will weigh less, but not that much less. Being -extremely- generous with that savings, and you still are well above half carrying capacity lost.

Not to mention that as the diesel truck uses fuel it gets lighter... not so with the battery powered one.

---------- Post added 2012-08-15 at 06:35 AM ----------

Hydrogen is about as dangerous as gas only it doesn't pool up and just disipates quickly if there is a leak. The byproduct from using hydrogen as a fuel is water so its environmentally safe as well. Hydrogen is also easy to obtain. Electric cars just aren't viable...they end up being worse than gas because it takes so long to charge up plus battery cars etc have hydrogen as a byproduct in them anyways! what do you guys think happens when batteries make that electric charge? Hydrogen is perfectly safe for use in vehicles and would already be the fuel of choice if not for the oil tycoons using smear campaigns making people worry about hydrogen exploding cars. Just need to get those oil guys interested in hydrogen production...show them the money and they will use their influence to make the change.

Making fuel cells (which is what i assume you are talking about when you say hydrogen) is not "free", environmentally or economically. There is no "smear campaign", the tech just isnt there yet for consumer fuel cells powering a car. This has been discussed earlier in this thread, there were several reasons that it is not a reality listed, check them out.

[Reeve]

This brings up another problem of the 3rd rail on the ground... weather. What happens when it rains? Floods? Snows? What about mud? Having it on the ground seems like a nightmare.

To be fair, above ground still has huge problems as well, which is why i think that we should not run live wires all across the US.

Weather concerns are fair concerns. I can think of a few ways to design the system though that wouldn't be bothered by rains/snow/animals etc. I'm sure actual engineers could come up with even better solutions. You bring up a lot of valid concerns, but I'm not convinced these are concerns that can't be engineered around.

You arent going to get a radical car redesign based on a few cities having it. Either way, city travel is not the issue, you need the electric lines for long distances. Either way, whatever, its not going to happen, so I am not going to argue about it.

You say we won't get a radical redesign based on only a few cities having the infrastructure, then go on to cite a vehicle in your next paragraph that's a radical redesign without full infrastructure available to support it. It doesn't have to be everyone on the road driving these things right away to be successful. It can start as a few vehicles and expand from there.

Current battery tech is decent. The Tesla can go over 200 miles on a charge. Yes, its over a hundred grand, but it also does 0-60 faster than a Ferrari. The Prius has proven that commercial batteries can be made well, last a reasonable amount of time, and be cheapish to recondition. Are the Prius batteries anywhere close to the roadsters? No, but the point is that companies can and do make decent batteries for cars.

EDIT: The new tesla can go 265 (EPA) miles, and is right at/under 100k. The battery is warrantied for 100kmiles/8years.

Are current batteries good enough for a truck? No. Are they good enough for compact run-around-town cars? Yeah.

I'm sorry, but I don't think a vehicle that costs $100,000+, only goes 244 miles, and requires a 3.5 hour recharge can be considered "decent." It's better than a lot of other battery tech, but it's still not usable on a broad basis. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing, it doesn't mean it doesn't have uses, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to develop these vehicles, but these batteries are hardly ready for prime time and won't be for a long time. Even when they are ready for prime time, we may not have the availability of resources to manufacture those batteries in sufficient quantities for mass production.

---------- Post added 2012-08-15 at 01:32 PM ----------

Hydrogen is about as dangerous as gas only it doesn't pool up and just disipates quickly if there is a leak. The byproduct from using hydrogen as a fuel is water so its environmentally safe as well. Hydrogen is also easy to obtain. Electric cars just aren't viable...they end up being worse than gas because it takes so long to charge up plus battery cars etc have hydrogen as a byproduct in them anyways! what do you guys think happens when batteries make that electric charge? Hydrogen is perfectly safe for use in vehicles and would already be the fuel of choice if not for the oil tycoons using smear campaigns making people worry about hydrogen exploding cars. Just need to get those oil guys interested in hydrogen production...show them the money and they will use their influence to make the change.

There's no good safe way to store hydrogen on a vehicle safely. And your point about the only emission being water is just not true. The hydrogen has to be produced first, which requires emissions. It may be somewhat friendlier than gasoline in terms of pollution per energy, but it's not perfectly environmentally friendly.

Also hydrogen fuel cells are very expensive and have a very expensive part (the membrane) that wears out very quickly.

Hydrogen isn't being held back because of oil tycoons. Oil tycoons would jump at the opportunity to have a new resource to exploit. It's being held back by the fact that it doesn't work.

[The Riddler]

Hydrogen is perfectly safe for use in vehicles and would already be the fuel of choice if not for the oil tycoons using smear campaigns making people worry about hydrogen exploding cars.

It's rather a myth that "Big Oil" is somehow trying to crush or delay the development of alternative fuel vehicles. Far from it. In fact oil and auto companies are the ones spending the most money on R&D for them. Hydrogen's problems are entirely to do with physics. There is no conspiracy. Hydrogen is not and never will be the solution to our transportation needs until someone invents a fuel cell that does not cost 100 grand.

3rd Rail...

This is a horrible idea. Electric trolleys work ONLY because they are on a railway system that travels a fixed route. Consumer vehicles do not. You'd have to have a 'bumper car' type solution with huge netted wire mesh 'roofs' over every road, highway, and street in the nation. Concrete is CHEAP and can be poured over huge areas requiring very little maintainance. The metal and wiring needed for an 'electric car' 3rd rail system would be astronomical, and would need constant repair and maintainance. Not to mention it would be ugly as sin. No. Horribad idea.

Iceland runs hydrogen stations splitting water via electrolysis powered by geothermal energy from the volcano they are sitting on. They power hydrogen combustion engines with this fuel.

They can extract it. They still can't use it in VEHICLES affordably. As with all hydrogen cars, you either have to have a fuel cell (insanely expensive) or compress the hydrogen (very dangerous). Even Iceland - which is a nation practically designed to run on hydrogen - can't make it work...

http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/07/01/1

The issue is that you'll want all that battery space filled (also as maximum current (and thus the aforementioned torque) is proportional to battery size, in addition to range) and that much battery is expensive.

This. Electric car MOTORS are great. Highly efficient. But no matter how good the motor is you have to power it - and EV cars have the worst power source on the planet... Batteries. They have an energy density of 0.7 megajules per kilogram - which is so bad that it takes over 400 pounds of batteries to get only one EIGHTH the power that's in a 12 gallon tank of gas. So they hold only tiny amounts of power (relatively speaking) and they are ridiculously expensive - which is why these fugly EV cars cost you more than a BMW.

I know some people say, "Well - once the manufacturing ramps up costs will go down!" Bologna. All of the parts and components of EVs have been on sale and in the market for well over 100 years. There is no more room for 'ramping up' things like the chassis, drive train, engine, wheels, and other vehicular aspects. They are already priced for the market. The only place there is room for improvement is the batteries, and they are already being sold at a LOSS even with massive government subsidies bucking them up. There will be no huge decrease in battery costs. Ever. Period.

[Reeve]

This is a horrible idea. Electric trolleys work ONLY because they are on a railway system that travels a fixed route. Consumer vehicles do not. You'd have to have a 'bumper car' type solution with huge netted wire mesh 'roofs' over every road, highway, and street in the nation. Concrete is CHEAP and can be poured over huge areas requiring very little maintainance. The metal and wiring needed for an 'electric car' 3rd rail system would be astronomical, and would need constant repair and maintainance. Not to mention it would be ugly as sin. No. Horribad idea.

Why would it have to be a "bumper car mesh?" It wouldn't even have to be an above ground solution.

[The Riddler]

It'd have to either be a mesh in the air, or a mesh in the ground because consumer vehicles are not trolleys. They travel all over the place. The whole 3rd rail concept only works when you maintain a constant active circuit between the power source and the engine. If the circuit breaks, the car stops - or you have to swap over to some other power source (defeating the purpose).

Even if you only limited the '3rd rail' system to the interstates and major freeways it would be impractical both from a cost standpoint, and from a practical standpoint.

[Reeve]

It'd have to either be a mesh in the air, or a mesh in the ground because consumer vehicles are not trolleys. They travel all over the place. The whole 3rd rail concept only works when you maintain a constant active circuit between the power source and the engine. If the circuit breaks, the car stops - or you have to swap over to some other power source (defeating the purpose).

Even if you only limited the '3rd rail' system to the interstates and major freeways it would be impractical both from a cost standpoint, and from a practical standpoint.

I did suggest only on the freeways, and I suggested these vehicles would have short range battery power, which would allow you to change lanes, for example, or drive from the freeway to and from your final destination. A connector could easily be designed to seek out a slot in the road where the "rail" is. It wouldn't have to be a mesh.

[JR-Ewing]

Drill More, open Federal Lands, and the Keystone Pipeline wasn't an option. More offshore rigs also, more refineries, and I love coal and natural gas.

I refuse to vote.

Drill baby Drill.

[Wixwix]

We have the technology and have had for some time, however the corporations will lose alot of money implementing these hence why they are not used.

[Deleted]

Iceland runs hydrogen stations splitting water via electrolysis powered by geothermal energy from the volcano they are sitting on. They power hydrogen combustion engines with this fuel. And apparently, it works quite well for them.

They have almost infinite energy in Iceland, so producing hydrogen is not really a problem. If batteries were cheaper they wouldn't use hydrogen.

[The Riddler]

I did suggest only on the freeways, and I suggested these vehicles would have short range battery power, which would allow you to change lanes, for example, or drive from the freeway to and from your final destination. A connector could easily be designed to seek out a slot in the road where the "rail" is. It wouldn't have to be a mesh.

Not understanding how you'd have a connector that would 'actively seek' rails. Are you describing some sort of flexible contact point that would be snaking around like a cable? Or would it be some sort of 'bar' that is on a track system in the undercarriage of the car? In the case of the former - no such technology exists that would be sufficiently thick to transfer enough current or 'smart' enough to find a rail. In the case of the latter, there's no way you'd have an undercarriage that could possibly allow the contact point to track and couple with the rails at the speeds necessary. Plus - neither system would be strong enough to hold up to the pounding it would take.

It's quite a dream. Way to think outside the box. But the the practical and economic obstacles of such a system make it absolutely unfeasible.

[Reeve]

Not understanding how you'd have a connector that would 'actively seek' rails. Are you describing some sort of flexible contact point that would be snaking around like a cable? Or would it be some sort of 'bar' that is on a track system in the undercarriage of the car? In the case of the former - no such technology exists that would be sufficiently thick to transfer enough current or 'smart' enough to find a rail. In the case of the latter, there's no way you'd have an undercarriage that could possibly allow the contact point to track and couple with the rails at the speeds necessary. Plus - neither system would be strong enough to hold up to the pounding it would take.

It's quite a dream. Way to think outside the box. But the the practical and economic obstacles of such a system make it absolutely unfeasible.

You may be right. But I look at it as a good premise with some interesting engineering challenges to overcome. I get the sense that you view it as a bad premise with impossible engineering challenges that can't be overcome. As far as I know, we've never attempted such a thing before, even on a small scale, and I refuse to believe the challenges involved are insurmountable. Certainly having a technology with a connector "smart" enough to actively seek a "rail" (whatever the rail/mesh/groove looked like) wouldn't be difficult at all. Probably the durability of the materials would be an issue, but again, I'm not fully convinced that can't be worked out.