DescentBB

Who killed the electric car? [you need quicktime player for this link]



I saw this show and from what i can tell: global
dimming is keeping global warming low.
But green house gasses are raising global
warming. Would this mean if people all switched
to electric cars?

\"...During this period {September 11),
an increase in diurnal temperature variation of
over 1 °C was observed in some parts of the US,
i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising
nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime
temperatures by much more than previously thought.\" –wikipedia.org

The electric car died because you don't have any way of generating electricity which is environmentally friendly. Here is New Zealand where 80% of our electricity is Hydroelectric, the electric car makes sense. But in a country where you burn coal to make electricity, it just doesn't make much sense.

Hydrogen fuel cells make more sense than electric cars - but once again - only if generating the Hydrogen is done in a way which does not spew CO2 into the atmosphere.

Here NZ wins again: we have so little infrastructure, that when it comes time ot change to H2, we'll find it much cheaper to switch over.

No one \"killed\" the electric car - it was just an idea whose time hadn't arrived, and whose location was wrong.

Mobius wrote:The electric car died because you don't have any way of generating electricity which is environmentally friendly. Here is New Zealand where 80% of our electricity is Hydroelectric, the electric car makes sense. But in a country where you burn coal to make electricity, it just doesn't make much sense.

Hydrogen fuel cells make more sense than electric cars - but once again - only if generating the Hydrogen is done in a way which does not spew CO2 into the atmosphere.

Here NZ wins again: we have so little infrastructure, that when it comes time ot change to H2, we'll find it much cheaper to switch over.

No one "killed" the electric car - it was just an idea whose time hadn't arrived, and whose location was wrong.

Oh ok. Didn't know that. but i was talking about the other reason.

FYI, never quote wikipedia

Aircraft Contrails are mearly condensed water vapor particles in the air, combine with a measly 1-2% of unburnt keroscene(jet fuel). They condense becuase the aircrafts engines exploded there and created an area of low pressure, since the pressur e is lower, all the water in the air has to go somewhere, so it simply forms...a cloud, holy hell!. anyway, now that Ive shot whoever wrote that theory down, whats next? Oh yeah, electric cars, Mobius put it rather simply, when you power an electric car from an outlet, you have to improve upon the power infrastructure. Now here in the south, we relly mostly on Nuclear plants and Hydroelectric damns, so it almost makes sense....but no, it doesnt. its like chargiing batterys for a remote control car, remember those days? 10hours of charging gets you a half hour of play time, its impractical. Batteries are also heavy, so now you have build a heavier engine to carry that dead weight, a bigger engine needs a bigger battery, and on and on.

Current hybrid cars for instance, thier resale value is crap, why, becuase the batterys they carry are only good on average for 3-5years, after this you have to strip the old battery and put a new one in, heres a newsflash, thats not like swapping a pair of duracells. my neighbors daughter had an insight, the new battery cost her in the neighborhood of 8000dollars, on a car with a bluebook value of like 9000dollars, instead of replacing it, she sold it for the remaining 1000dollars,(what it was worth without the battery)

Anyway, I can go on and on on this one, but I havnt the time =)

Im all for hydrogen cars, if hydrogen is stored in a controlled enviroment, its harmless, if you get into an accident and it leaks, it will disperse into the atmosphere before any big booms can occur.

Because wikipedia is obviously always wrong. ;)

Honestly, no, I wouldn't use it in a report or thesis because of the probability of pedants fretting over it. But if the objective is just to learn something, it's more reliable than asking some guy you know who seems to have decent knowledge of a subject - for obvious reasons. (Unless that guy actually is an authority.)

That aside though, from memory hydrogen is generally produced not by electrolysis but by a less energy-consuming process termed something unwieldy like \"steam reforming of natural gas\".

Natural gas as in methane/ethane. Is CO2 still produced? You betcha. Effectively, that method is little better than what you currently have, except the emissions are reduced to point sources and thus it is still more healthy for the average man on the street. (Unless he smokes, in which case it won't make much of a difference.)

[dblpst]

The hybrid solutions out there right now are just good to reduce consumption, but they remain cars that run on gas. Also, I don't get the point of making a hybrid SUV at all

If we're looking for ways to gain energy without burning fossile fuel (and thus not emitting any CO2), our options are limited. Wind energy. No thanks, it's ugly it's expensive it's ineffective. Wave and tidal energy? Now that might be interesting.

The ultimate source for power remains nuclear. Nuclear fission makes very little, but very dirty pollution. But it can be kept in check due to the low relative quantities.

I wonder though, what has happened to nuclear fusion research? It's a long time since we have an H-bomb, yet nobody seems interested in it as a power source. It would be the ultimate solution though. Limitless fuel available, no radioactivity, and a few times more power than regular fission.

Instead of throwing money at wind mills, put it in fusion research. Alas, politicians are short-sighted.

Tricord wrote:The hybrid solutions out there right now are just good to reduce consumption, but they remain cars that run on gas. Also, I don't get the point of making a hybrid SUV at all

If we're looking for ways to gain energy without burning fossile fuel (and thus not emitting any CO2), our options are limited. Wind energy. No thanks, it's ugly it's expensive it's ineffective. Wave and tidal energy? Now that might be interesting.

The ultimate source for power remains nuclear. Nuclear fission makes very little, but very dirty pollution. But it can be kept in check due to the low relative quantities.

I wonder though, what has happened to nuclear fusion research? It's a long time since we have an H-bomb, yet nobody seems interested in it as a power source. It would be the ultimate solution though. Limitless fuel available, no radioactivity, and a few times more power than regular fission.

Instead of throwing money at wind mills, put it in fusion research. Alas, politicians are short-sighted.

My guess is that in order to sustain a fusion reaction more heat and pressure than humanly controllable would be required.

I watched a show talking about hytdrogen powered cars. The man who invented the Ni-MH battery (I think it was that, some form of rechargable) had also invented this solid black \"spounge\" type thing that safely held hydrogen.

A metal hydride tank is considered to be a very safe fuel system in the event of a collision because the loss of pressure in a punctured tank will cool down the metal hydride, which will then cease to release hydrogen

http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/hydroge ... 22852.html

Wow, there is a LOT more about hydrogen energy that I never knew about. Thank you google.

The show also talked about hydrogen cars already being used in Iceland. There are some gas stations there that \"produce\" hydrogen on the spot (probably through electrolysis), ready for the cars. The show had some great ideas but I'm sorry I don't remember that much, it was a long time ago.

how about a thermal pipe, simplly drill one hole drop one very rugged injection pipe for the water, cap the top & away you go free power. Tap the hot core of the planet.
cheers
rij

Actually, Tricord, modern wind turbines are very effective and end up giving you a relatively good bang for your buck (at least, according to my thermodynamics professor last semester). And \"ugly\" is all in the eyes of the beholder; I personally think that a 150-foot wind turbine looks pretty badass.

How about just taking some of that agricultural surplus you keep hearing about (which is supposedly left to rot) and making ethanol? Combine that with ethanol agriculture and you've got a winner.

Any car that runs on gasoline can be converted to ethanol... the byproducts of ethanol combustion are... Water and Carbon Dioxide. Better yet.. The biomass used for ethanol absorbs CO2 when it is grown, so it adds no net CO2 to the atmosphere.

The main con is that Ethanol only has about 3/4ths the energy density of gasoline by volume. The other kink is that ethanol production is also energy intensive, although there is a 'profit margin' which gets wider every day as new technologies are rolled out. The economics would get better and better as big business got more interested.

Given our wonderfully more efficient engines today, I'm pretty sure I could deal with that as a trade-off for a cleaner fuel source.