Arg, I need a more authoritative source than wikipedia on this
"Diesel powered cars generally have about a 40% better fuel economy than equivalent gasoline engines[1] and <b><u>produce only about 69% of the greenhouse gases</u>. </b> This greater fuel economy is due to the higher per-liter energy content of diesel fuel and also to the intrinsic efficiency of the diesel engine. While diesel's 15% higher volumetric energy density results in 15% higher greenhouse gas emissions per liter compared to gasoline[2], the 40% better fuel economy achieved by modern diesel-engined automobiles offsets the higher-per-liter emissions of greenhouse gases, resulting in significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions per kilometer.[3][4]" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel#Petroleum_diesel" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel#Petroleum_diesel</a>
The selling point of these things are hideouly misleading. Charging a car with these specs in 10 minutes, or normal mains?
No, it's a 480v INDUSTRIAL hookup which can charge them in that amount of time. For the UK people among us, that's the equilivent of hooking it up directly to the 3-phase system, and charging it that way...
You misunderstood (I wrote it badly), I meant that you cant have the car stay still then step on the gas and hear the engine winding up and growling, on the other hand they must be very quiet.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
<!--quoteo(post=1604236:date=Feb 6 2007, 04:54 PM:name=Svenpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Svenpa @ Feb 6 2007, 04:54 PM) [snapback]1604236[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You misunderstood (I wrote it badly), I meant that you cant have the car stay still then step on the gas and hear the engine winding up and growling, on the other hand they must be very quiet. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1604237:date=Feb 6 2007, 04:06 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Abra @ Feb 6 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]1604237[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think I get it now. He's saying that electric cars don't "sound" powerful, because they are quiet.
No roaring engine noise to be impressed by. (Plenty else however)
<!--quoteo(post=1604203:date=Feb 6 2007, 01:03 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Feb 6 2007, 01:03 PM) [snapback]1604203[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Nuclear power plants are just as bad as coal plants when it comes to global warming. <a href="http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm</a> Besides which, they cost way too much, and are propped up entirely by government subsidy. If we have that much money to toss around, a small sliver would be better spent on other technologies. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Most of that article is "Nuclear fuel has transport costs in terms of fossil fuels". Well, er, so does coal and oil, more often then nuclear. Nuclear fuel has refinement costs in terms of electricity, which as said by that article, only 1 third need to be replaced every year. Oil has refinement costs as well, but this needs to be done far more often then nuclear. Given the fact that nuclear doesn't spew out CO2 every day from the reactor, I'd say it's a damn site cleaner then oil and coal.
If we have that much money to toss around, the faster old reactors are converted to newer fast breeder reactors, the better. Do it all in one lump as soon as possible, and you then have decades to research before uranium runs out, which will obviously occur after oil no longer becomes feasable.
<!--quoteo(post=1604280:date=Feb 6 2007, 02:50 PM:name=digz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digz @ Feb 6 2007, 02:50 PM) [snapback]1604280[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I dread driving an electric in winter. Watch how fast the 130 mile range falls to 50 per charge. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Shouldn't it be the opposite? Batteries are more efficient I believe when they are cold. And doesn't resistence go down as a wire becomes colder?
<!--quoteo(post=1604148:date=Feb 6 2007, 12:00 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 6 2007, 12:00 AM) [snapback]1604148[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> How much fossil fule does a power plant need to burn to recharge the car up enough for a 100 mile trip? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is pretty exciting for places that use primarily hydroelectricity, though. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Most of the power in Montreal is hydroelectric.
On another note... Why does it look like that car has exhaust pipes?
<!--quoteo(post=1604283:date=Feb 6 2007, 07:59 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Feb 6 2007, 07:59 PM) [snapback]1604283[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Shouldn't it be the opposite? Batteries are more efficient I believe when they are cold. And doesn't resistence go down as a wire becomes colder?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The electronics get better. Yes. The batteries, which are driven by chemical processes, however get weaker.
So maybe we need something <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/" target="_blank">that isn't a battery <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /></a>
"The production EESU for ZENN Motor Company are expected to function to specification in operating environments as severe as <a href="http://pesn.com/2007/01/17/9500448_EEStor_milestones" target="_blank">-4 to 149 degrees Fahrenheit</a>, will weigh less than 100 pounds, and will have ability to be recharged in a matter of minutes."
"The first commercial application of the EESU is intended to be used in electric vehicles under a technology agreement with ZENN Motors Company. EEStor, Inc. remains on track to begin shipping production 15-kilowatt-hour Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) to ZENN Motor Company <b>in 2007 for use in their electric vehicles.</b>"
You got some people saying "OMG <a href="http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=20216" target="_blank">Cellulosic BioMass</a>" But then you're stuck taking care of very picky bacteria that likely need a very uniform feedstock. And in generally you are limited in speed of the biological processes of the bacteria.
And some saying "OMG <a href="http://urwebsrv.rutgers.edu/medrel/science/coal.shtml" target="_blank">Gasify Coal, then turn it into Liquid Diesel</a>" Well that basically double the global warming potential of petroluem diesel, so thats stupid.
Turns out, you can do the best of both, with the downsides of neither. <a href="http://www.worldcarfans.com/print.cfm/ID/2040927.003/lang/eng" target="_blank">You can Gasify Cellulosic BioMass, and then turn it into Liquid Diesel.</a>
Apparently from what I was listening to in <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=363807137347714545" target="_blank">this hour long presentation </a> it said that Biomass-to-Liquid could bump up the capturable energy to something like 15 units of energy out, for every 1 put in.
Which is pretty huge when compared to the other alternatives get out from 1 unit of energy in. 3.20 Biodiesel (soy bean) 1.34 Ethanol (corn) 0.84 Petro-diesel 0.81 Gasoline
He also mentioned that while this process is predisposed to pumping out Diesel That it could also be downgraded to produce Ethanol.
So yeah, Ethanol from Switchgrass. BioDiesel from Switchgrass. Ethanol and BioDiesel from damned near anything.
Ooh, it'd even be able to make natural gas for power plants.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1604320:date=Feb 6 2007, 07:21 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Feb 6 2007, 07:21 PM) [snapback]1604320[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The electronics get better. Yes. The batteries, which are driven by chemical processes, however get weaker.
So maybe we need something <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/" target="_blank">that isn't a battery <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /></a>
"The production EESU for ZENN Motor Company are expected to function to specification in operating environments as severe as <a href="http://pesn.com/2007/01/17/9500448_EEStor_milestones" target="_blank">-4 to 149 degrees Fahrenheit</a>, will weigh less than 100 pounds, and will have ability to be recharged in a matter of minutes."
"The first commercial application of the EESU is intended to be used in electric vehicles under a technology agreement with ZENN Motors Company. EEStor, Inc. remains on track to begin shipping production 15-kilowatt-hour Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) to ZENN Motor Company <b>in 2007 for use in their electric vehicles.</b>" <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You might want to read through some of the comments left below that first article. I noticed this one specifically: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like many of the readers I got very excited when I first glanced over the article. Who wouldn’t? After all, if the company can truly deliver what it promised for, who isn’t able to recognize its potential and enormous impact to the society and to our daily lives?
However, the more details I read into it, the more skeptical I became about the ultracapacitor’s estimated performance and the company’s approach to achieving it. In fact, I started to feel so strongly about something fundamentally wrong about it, that I studied the relevant patent documents mentioned in the article, and confirmed the existence of a fundamental flaw in the company’s patented technology. And, my findings about it are explained below in as much plain English as it allows.
Details about the company’s key technology and approach to the ultracapacitor-based power system can be found in US patent #7,033,406. In essence, it relies on the wrapping of the conventional high-permittivity barium-titanate-based grains (each is about 1 micron in size, with a permittivity as high as 33,5000) with two insulative coatings (each is about 10 nm in thickness, including alumina, with a permittivity of only about 10), hoping to improve the stability and performance of the capacitor by reducing potential current leakage in and/or through the conventional high-permittivity barium-titanate-based grains.
A fundamental flaw is found regarding it’s way to calculate the reduction in effective permittivity of the entirety of the grains wrapped with the coatings. The calculation was based on the assumption that the coatings would only cause a reduction of 12% in permittivity from that of the barium-titanate-based grains, and concluded that the entirety of the grains wrapped with the coatings could still have an overall permittivity as high as 29,480.
Unfortunately, such assumption is fundamentally wrong, because the reduction in permittivity in the entirety of the grain wrapped with the two insulativecoatings is mainly determined by the nature of the series connection between the grain and the coated films along the electrical field direction. It is equivalent to the case of two series-connected capacitors, one with its capacitor dielectric layer being formed of the barium-titanate grain and the other with its capacitor dielectric layer being formed of the two insulative coatings.
And, the correct calculation about the effective permittivity for the entirety of the grain wrapped with the two insulative coatings should be based on the equation:
Kgc = (Dg + Dc)x(Kg x Kc)/(Kg x Dc + Kc x Dg)
Here, Kg, Kc and Kgc denote the permittivities for the grain, the two insulating coatings, and, the entirety of the grain wrapped with the two insulating coatings, respectively; while Dg and Dc refer to the thicknesses of the grain and the two insulating coatings, respectively.
Accordingly, it is always true that:
Kgc < (Dg + Dc)x(Kg x Kc)/(Kg x Dc );
i.e.,
Kgc < (Dg + Dc) x Kc / Dc;
or,
Kgc < 260,
given that the size of the barium-titanate-based grain Dg is about 1 micron, the total thickness of the two coatings is about 40 nm for each grain, and the permittivity of the coatings is about 10, regardless how purified barium-titanate-based powders has or will have been achieved by the company.
So, the effective permittivity of the entirety of the grain and its two coatings is always less than about 250, which is less than one percent of the permittivity of 29,480 as what was originally estimated by the company.
As a result, the correctly estimated achievable energy density in the ultracapacitor based on the company’s technology should also be correspondingly less than one percent of what the company originally promised for.
Of course, in reality, not every grain can be coated with the insulative coatings exactly in the manner as originally intended by the company. It may results in some minor fluctuation in the maximum achievable effective permittivity through the company’s technology; but, nothing appears to be able to substantially offset the significant reduction in the effective permittivity inherently caused by the two low-permittivity insulating coatings in the technology.
Given what I have found here, can anyone still call the company’s technology a “game-changing” breakthrough?
For those who would like to know more details of my finds, you are welcome to contact me for further discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understood about 10% of that but I get the distinct impression that he just blew the whole theory out the window.
<!--quoteo(post=1604335:date=Feb 7 2007, 01:42 AM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Feb 7 2007, 01:42 AM) [snapback]1604335[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I understood about 10% of that but I get the distinct impression that he just blew the whole theory out the window. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well they say they are gonna be putting out product in mere months.
And their venture capital firm, Kliener Perkins, is the same one responsible for funding Amazon.com, Ebay, and Google.
I'd definantly be skeptical, but I won't say it's time to say "It's not possible".
<!--quoteo(post=1604203:date=Feb 6 2007, 08:03 AM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Feb 6 2007, 08:03 AM) [snapback]1604203[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Nuclear power plants are just as bad as coal plants when it comes to global warming. <a href="http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm</a> Besides which, they cost way too much, and are propped up entirely by government subsidy. If we have that much money to toss around, a small sliver would be better spent on other technologies. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nuclear power is preferable to oil based power though, isn't it? I mean yes, it's obviously energy intensive to mine uranium. But it's plausible to convert the fuel usage of the mining equipment to biodeasle and other engine options, which basically means the greatest pure fossil fuel usage is the tires, which I think are likely a pretty reasonable cost in retrospective. There's no argument that nuclear plants are more expensive to start up, but a total global economy crash is pretty expensive too... We need to start investing in SOME sort of alternative in the near future.
<!--quoteo(post=1604339:date=Feb 6 2007, 10:04 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 6 2007, 10:04 PM) [snapback]1604339[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Nuclear power is preferable to oil based power though, isn't it? I mean yes, it's obviously energy intensive to mine uranium. But it's plausible to convert the fuel usage of the mining equipment to biodeasle and other engine options, which basically means the greatest pure fossil fuel usage is the tires, which I think are likely a pretty reasonable cost in retrospective. There's no argument that nuclear plants are more expensive to start up, but a total global economy crash is pretty expensive too... We need to start investing in SOME sort of alternative in the near future. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what <i>I've</i> heard CarebearTech inc. is working on a car that runs on happy thoughts and gumdrop dreams.
This is classified however, Im going to have to kill you all now.
Well also there's just the matter of they cost a hell of a lot. They are the most expensive option, even after subsides are taken into account.
Instead they should be putting that money into tech like gassification of biomass, distributed energy storage, geothermal, ocean current "watermills", or the advancement of solar tech would be far better spent.
As is, for how much promise Solar has, it only gets 1/20th the ammount of subsidy of corn ethanol. Hell, I'd imagine nuclear is many times above that.
If Solar's subsidy went up to the level of ethanol, given the new thin film panels coming down the pike. They'd have to practically be giving them away for free. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
Then whenever they get the next generation of solar panels out of the lab it'd be cheaper than damned near everything. Since it'll be able to double or quadruple it's effeciency. <a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060603/bob8.asp" target="_blank">http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060603/bob8.asp</a>
Noted, Nuclear is likely a better option than normal Coal Frankly, we'd be better off just using natural gas than nuclear. It's much much cheaper, and would result in nearly the same carbon impact.
Hell, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXEiZTAvAvY" target="_blank">IGCC</a> might even be a better option than nuclear. But as is, not much has been done to actually implement IGCC, because the are more expensive than normal coal plants. If we got that much subsidy to toss around, do coal correctly. IGCC is about 3x as effecient per energy input than normal coal plants. And offers the real potential of carbon sequestration.
And then use Algae to <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0111/p01s03-sten.htm" target="_blank">cut down the remaining CO2 emmisions by 30%</a>
_
Besides which, how the hell are we supposed to tell other countries like Iran "You can't have nuke plants" if we're expanding ours?
Uranium is in limited supply, if we really want to use renewable resources, I think our best bet are <a href="http://www.coachingtohappiness.com/happy-thoughts.html" target="_blank">happy thoughts</a>.
-According to <a href="http://www.care-bears.com/CareBears/html/faq/index.html" target="_blank">this</a> scientific article the world generates approximately 3.5 metric Jigga-whats of happiness energy (down from 4.5 jigga-whats in the 1970s).
-Using only a small portion of the <a href="http://www.care-bears.com/CareBears/html/about/index.html" target="_blank">worlds reserves of happy thoughts</a> many <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_Smurf" target="_blank">scientists</a> we could power more then twice of the worlds <a href="http://www.hotwheels.com/index_hwkids.aspx" target="_blank">vehicles</a>.
-Using the patented <a href="http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&fkr=1&from=R8&satitle=happy+thoughts+generator&category0=&submitSearch=Search" target="_blank">happy thoughts convertor</a> it is projected we can achieve a 1.5 or higher happy-thought wattage per capita maximum drain from the resevoir to power each vehicle.
Many are skepticle of what they call our "outrageous" claims. However I can assure you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie" target="_blank">they are based completely in reality</a>.
This ad was paid for by <a href="http://www.itsatrap.net" target="_blank">CarebearTech Inc.</a>
Don't be ridiculous. The obvious solution is to simply murder all the people above 90kg and turn them into glue, glue which we will use to attach snails to skateboards. Thus we will be able to power over 70% of the world's bathroom-fixture power consumption needs indefinitely.
<!--quoteo(post=1604357:date=Feb 7 2007, 05:33 AM:name=emperor_awesome)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(emperor_awesome @ Feb 7 2007, 05:33 AM) [snapback]1604357[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Don't be ridiculous. The obvious solution is to simply murder all the people above 90kg and turn them into glue, glue which we will use to attach snails to skateboards. Thus we will be able to power over 70% of the world's bathroom-fixture power consumption needs indefinitely.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well there <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050419095118.htm" target="_blank">was this one glue</a> they designed which now has replaced fromaldahyde glues.
Ironically fromaldahyde glue is still used in China, to sell hardwood cabinets to the US. But China doesn't allow those same cabinets to be sold in their own country :O
<!--quoteo(post=1604354:date=Feb 7 2007, 04:22 AM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Feb 7 2007, 04:22 AM) [snapback]1604354[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Uranium is in limited supply, if we really want to use renewable resources, I think our best bet are happy thoughts. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://www.careenergy.com/" target="_blank">http://www.careenergy.com/</a> (Real website)
<!--quoteo(post=1604339:date=Feb 7 2007, 03:04 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 7 2007, 03:04 AM) [snapback]1604339[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> which basically means the greatest pure fossil fuel usage is the tires, which I think are likely a pretty reasonable cost in retrospective. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually they got a solution for that too. Bill Gates is handing a big chunk of money for a UC Berkeley start-up to go use yeast and sugar make compounds that are chemically identical to to existing petroleum fuels.
I'd assume that by the time they get it out "5 to 10 years" that the main usage for this would be petrochemicals.
_
But then again, I thought it was kind of ironic that in WW2, we used ethanol tires.
Put it to the military to use energy tech first <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Cellulosic BioMass into Diesel fuel <a href="http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070201LadischBio.html" target="_blank">http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070201LadischBio.html</a>
Hate to bump, but man thats insane. Electric gets -instant- torque rather than gas, so your looking at way more than your regular car. That would just stick you to your seat like no other.
electric, and hibrid cars never challenge the REAL benzin 8 litres , V8 engined CARS <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":angry:" border="0" alt="mad-fix.gif" /> . Like mad max V8, and The others, like camaros, or mustangs .... or my faviroite V6 tiburon <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> . this is my word.
<!--quoteo(post=1607141:date=Feb 16 2007, 01:37 PM:name=HatlabuFarkas)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HatlabuFarkas @ Feb 16 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]1607141[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> electric, and hibrid cars never challenge the REAL benzin 8 litres , V8 engined CARS <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":angry:" border="0" alt="mad-fix.gif" /> . Like mad max V8, and The others, like camaros, or mustangs .... or my faviroite V6 tiburon <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> . this is my word. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually they opened up a new way to get there.
<a href="http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/evs-22.html" target="_blank">This current production engine only</a> gets 135hp But it's a fair upgrade over the previous 80hp
Whats really unique is that the previous engines used to be using physical rare-earth magnets. This new engine uses electro magnets. That opens the way for ever increasing horsepower.
_
In the short-term. Diesel offers better horsepower than gasoline. With better low end torque And +20-40% better gas mileage ;D (+55% if using HCCI, and +67% if using ISS&HCCI)
And as of next year, diesel cars will be as squeeky clean in emmisions as a Prius.
_
Now when we're talking custom cars ;D
"Ian Wright has a car that blows away a Ferrari 360 Spider and a Porsche Carrera GT in drag races, and whose 0-to-60 acceleration time ranks it among the fastest production autos in the world. In fact, it's second only to the French-made Bugatti Veyron, a 1,000-horsepower, 16-cylinder beast that hits 60 mph half a second faster and goes for $1.25 million.
The key difference? The Bugatti gets eight miles per gallon. Wright's car? It runs off an electric battery.
Wright, a 50-year-old entrepreneur from New Zealand, thinks his electric car, the X1, can soon be made into a small-production roadster that car fanatics and weekend warriors will happily take home for about $100,000 - a quarter ton of batteries included. He has even launched a startup, called Wrightspeed, to custom-make and sell the cars." <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/04/technology/business2_wrightspeed/" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/04/technology...s2_wrightspeed/</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1603845:date=Feb 4 2007, 11:27 AM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kouji_San @ Feb 4 2007, 11:27 AM) [snapback]1603845[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Howcome all of the hybride cars are ugly as hell...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't find them to be ugly at all. They're a refreshing change IMO
Comments
"Diesel powered cars generally have about a 40% better fuel economy than equivalent gasoline engines[1] and <b><u>produce only about 69% of the greenhouse gases</u>. </b> This greater fuel economy is due to the higher per-liter energy content of diesel fuel and also to the intrinsic efficiency of the diesel engine. While diesel's 15% higher volumetric energy density results in 15% higher greenhouse gas emissions per liter compared to gasoline[2], the 40% better fuel economy achieved by modern diesel-engined automobiles offsets the higher-per-liter emissions of greenhouse gases, resulting in significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions per kilometer.[3][4]"
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel#Petroleum_diesel" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel#Petroleum_diesel</a>
No, it's a 480v INDUSTRIAL hookup which can charge them in that amount of time.
For the UK people among us, that's the equilivent of hooking it up directly to the 3-phase system, and charging it that way...
You misunderstood (I wrote it badly), I meant that you cant have the car stay still then step on the gas and hear the engine winding up and growling, on the other hand they must be very quiet.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
What? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I get it now.
He's saying that electric cars don't "sound" powerful, because they are quiet.
No roaring engine noise to be impressed by. (Plenty else however)
Nuclear power plants are just as bad as coal plants when it comes to global warming.
<a href="http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm</a>
Besides which, they cost way too much, and are propped up entirely by government subsidy.
If we have that much money to toss around, a small sliver would be better spent on other technologies.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of that article is "Nuclear fuel has transport costs in terms of fossil fuels". Well, er, so does coal and oil, more often then nuclear. Nuclear fuel has refinement costs in terms of electricity, which as said by that article, only 1 third need to be replaced every year. Oil has refinement costs as well, but this needs to be done far more often then nuclear. Given the fact that nuclear doesn't spew out CO2 every day from the reactor, I'd say it's a damn site cleaner then oil and coal.
If we have that much money to toss around, the faster old reactors are converted to newer fast breeder reactors, the better. Do it all in one lump as soon as possible, and you then have decades to research before uranium runs out, which will obviously occur after oil no longer becomes feasable.
I dread driving an electric in winter. Watch how fast the 130 mile range falls to 50 per charge.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shouldn't it be the opposite? Batteries are more efficient I believe when they are cold. And doesn't resistence go down as a wire becomes colder?
How much fossil fule does a power plant need to burn to recharge the car up enough for a 100 mile trip?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pretty exciting for places that use primarily hydroelectricity, though. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Most of the power in Montreal is hydroelectric.
On another note... Why does it look like that car has exhaust pipes?
Shouldn't it be the opposite? Batteries are more efficient I believe when they are cold. And doesn't resistence go down as a wire becomes colder?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The electronics get better. Yes.
The batteries, which are driven by chemical processes, however get weaker.
So maybe we need something <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/" target="_blank">that isn't a battery <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /></a>
"The production EESU for ZENN Motor Company are expected to function to specification in operating environments as severe as <a href="http://pesn.com/2007/01/17/9500448_EEStor_milestones" target="_blank">-4 to 149 degrees Fahrenheit</a>, will weigh less than 100 pounds, and will have ability to be recharged in a matter of minutes."
"The first commercial application of the EESU is intended to be used in electric vehicles under a technology agreement with ZENN Motors Company. EEStor, Inc. remains on track to begin shipping production 15-kilowatt-hour Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) to ZENN Motor Company <b>in 2007 for use in their electric vehicles.</b>"
You got some people saying "OMG <a href="http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=20216" target="_blank">Cellulosic BioMass</a>"
But then you're stuck taking care of very picky bacteria that likely need a very uniform feedstock.
And in generally you are limited in speed of the biological processes of the bacteria.
And some saying "OMG <a href="http://urwebsrv.rutgers.edu/medrel/science/coal.shtml" target="_blank">Gasify Coal, then turn it into Liquid Diesel</a>"
Well that basically double the global warming potential of petroluem diesel, so thats stupid.
Turns out, you can do the best of both, with the downsides of neither.
<a href="http://www.worldcarfans.com/print.cfm/ID/2040927.003/lang/eng" target="_blank">You can Gasify Cellulosic BioMass, and then turn it into Liquid Diesel.</a>
Apparently from what I was listening to in <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=363807137347714545" target="_blank">this hour long presentation </a>
it said that Biomass-to-Liquid could bump up the capturable energy to something like 15 units of energy out, for every 1 put in.
Which is pretty huge when compared to the other alternatives get out from 1 unit of energy in.
3.20 Biodiesel (soy bean)
1.34 Ethanol (corn)
0.84 Petro-diesel
0.81 Gasoline
He also mentioned that while this process is predisposed to pumping out Diesel
That it could also be downgraded to produce Ethanol.
So yeah,
Ethanol from Switchgrass.
BioDiesel from Switchgrass.
Ethanol and BioDiesel from damned near anything.
Ooh, it'd even be able to make natural gas for power plants.
<img src="http://peebucket.com/images/doc_brown.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" /> <img src="http://www.peoplespharmacy.org/photos/banana_peel_for_warts.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
_
<a href="http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom/0,,0-5-7153-1-469035-1-0-0-466468-0-0-243-7145-0-0-0-0-0-0-1,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom/0,,0-...0-0-0-1,00.html</a>
<a href="http://www.fnr-server.de/cms35/BTL_-_english_version.788.0.html" target="_blank">http://www.fnr-server.de/cms35/BTL_-_engli...sion.788.0.html</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process</a>
The electronics get better. Yes.
The batteries, which are driven by chemical processes, however get weaker.
So maybe we need something <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/" target="_blank">that isn't a battery <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /></a>
"The production EESU for ZENN Motor Company are expected to function to specification in operating environments as severe as <a href="http://pesn.com/2007/01/17/9500448_EEStor_milestones" target="_blank">-4 to 149 degrees Fahrenheit</a>, will weigh less than 100 pounds, and will have ability to be recharged in a matter of minutes."
"The first commercial application of the EESU is intended to be used in electric vehicles under a technology agreement with ZENN Motors Company. EEStor, Inc. remains on track to begin shipping production 15-kilowatt-hour Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) to ZENN Motor Company <b>in 2007 for use in their electric vehicles.</b>"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You might want to read through some of the comments left below that first article. I noticed this one specifically:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like many of the readers I got very excited when I first glanced over the article. Who wouldn’t? After all, if the company can truly deliver what it promised for, who isn’t able to recognize its potential and enormous impact to the society and to our daily lives?
However, the more details I read into it, the more skeptical I became about the ultracapacitor’s estimated performance and the company’s approach to achieving it. In fact, I started to feel so strongly about something fundamentally wrong about it, that I studied the relevant patent documents mentioned in the article, and confirmed the existence of a fundamental flaw in the company’s patented technology. And, my findings about it are explained below in as much plain English as it allows.
Details about the company’s key technology and approach to the ultracapacitor-based power system can be found in US patent #7,033,406. In essence, it relies on the wrapping of the conventional high-permittivity barium-titanate-based grains (each is about 1 micron in size, with a permittivity as high as 33,5000) with two insulative coatings (each is about 10 nm in thickness, including alumina, with a permittivity of only about 10), hoping to improve the stability and performance of the capacitor by reducing potential current leakage in and/or through the conventional high-permittivity barium-titanate-based grains.
A fundamental flaw is found regarding it’s way to calculate the reduction in effective permittivity of the entirety of the grains wrapped with the coatings. The calculation was based on the assumption that the coatings would only cause a reduction of 12% in permittivity from that of the barium-titanate-based grains, and concluded that the entirety of the grains wrapped with the coatings could still have an overall permittivity as high as 29,480.
Unfortunately, such assumption is fundamentally wrong, because the reduction in permittivity in the entirety of the grain wrapped with the two insulativecoatings is mainly determined by the nature of the series connection between the grain and the coated films along the electrical field direction. It is equivalent to the case of two series-connected capacitors, one with its capacitor dielectric layer being formed of the barium-titanate grain and the other with its capacitor dielectric layer being formed of the two insulative coatings.
And, the correct calculation about the effective permittivity for the entirety of the grain wrapped with the two insulative coatings should be based on the equation:
Kgc = (Dg + Dc)x(Kg x Kc)/(Kg x Dc + Kc x Dg)
Here, Kg, Kc and Kgc denote the permittivities for the grain, the two insulating coatings, and, the entirety of the grain wrapped with the two insulating coatings, respectively; while Dg and Dc refer to the thicknesses of the grain and the two insulating coatings, respectively.
Accordingly, it is always true that:
Kgc < (Dg + Dc)x(Kg x Kc)/(Kg x Dc );
i.e.,
Kgc < (Dg + Dc) x Kc / Dc;
or,
Kgc < 260,
given that the size of the barium-titanate-based grain Dg is about 1 micron, the total thickness of the two coatings is about 40 nm for each grain, and the permittivity of the coatings is about 10, regardless how purified barium-titanate-based powders has or will have been achieved by the company.
So, the effective permittivity of the entirety of the grain and its two coatings is always less than about 250, which is less than one percent of the permittivity of 29,480 as what was originally estimated by the company.
As a result, the correctly estimated achievable energy density in the ultracapacitor based on the company’s technology should also be correspondingly less than one percent of what the company originally promised for.
Of course, in reality, not every grain can be coated with the insulative coatings exactly in the manner as originally intended by the company. It may results in some minor fluctuation in the maximum achievable effective permittivity through the company’s technology; but, nothing appears to be able to substantially offset the significant reduction in the effective permittivity inherently caused by the two low-permittivity insulating coatings in the technology.
Given what I have found here, can anyone still call the company’s technology a “game-changing” breakthrough?
For those who would like to know more details of my finds, you are welcome to contact me for further discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understood about 10% of that but I get the distinct impression that he just blew the whole theory out the window.
I understood about 10% of that but I get the distinct impression that he just blew the whole theory out the window.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well they say they are gonna be putting out product in mere months.
And their venture capital firm, Kliener Perkins, is the same one responsible for funding Amazon.com, Ebay, and Google.
I'd definantly be skeptical, but I won't say it's time to say "It's not possible".
Nuclear power plants are just as bad as coal plants when it comes to global warming.
<a href="http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm</a>
Besides which, they cost way too much, and are propped up entirely by government subsidy.
If we have that much money to toss around, a small sliver would be better spent on other technologies.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nuclear power is preferable to oil based power though, isn't it? I mean yes, it's obviously energy intensive to mine uranium. But it's plausible to convert the fuel usage of the mining equipment to biodeasle and other engine options, which basically means the greatest pure fossil fuel usage is the tires, which I think are likely a pretty reasonable cost in retrospective. There's no argument that nuclear plants are more expensive to start up, but a total global economy crash is pretty expensive too... We need to start investing in SOME sort of alternative in the near future.
Nuclear power is preferable to oil based power though, isn't it? I mean yes, it's obviously energy intensive to mine uranium. But it's plausible to convert the fuel usage of the mining equipment to biodeasle and other engine options, which basically means the greatest pure fossil fuel usage is the tires, which I think are likely a pretty reasonable cost in retrospective. There's no argument that nuclear plants are more expensive to start up, but a total global economy crash is pretty expensive too... We need to start investing in SOME sort of alternative in the near future.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From what <i>I've</i> heard CarebearTech inc. is working on a car that runs on happy thoughts and gumdrop dreams.
This is classified however, Im going to have to kill you all now.
They are the most expensive option, even after subsides are taken into account.
Instead they should be putting that money into tech like gassification of biomass,
distributed energy storage, geothermal, ocean current "watermills",
or the advancement of solar tech would be far better spent.
As is, for how much promise Solar has, it only gets 1/20th the ammount of subsidy of corn ethanol.
Hell, I'd imagine nuclear is many times above that.
If Solar's subsidy went up to the level of ethanol, given the new thin film panels coming down the pike.
They'd have to practically be giving them away for free. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
Then whenever they get the next generation of solar panels out of the lab it'd be cheaper than damned near everything. Since it'll be able to double or quadruple it's effeciency.
<a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060603/bob8.asp" target="_blank">http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060603/bob8.asp</a>
Noted, Nuclear is likely a better option than normal Coal
Frankly, we'd be better off just using natural gas than nuclear.
It's much much cheaper, and would result in nearly the same carbon impact.
Hell, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXEiZTAvAvY" target="_blank">IGCC</a> might even be a better option than nuclear.
But as is, not much has been done to actually implement IGCC, because the are more expensive than normal coal plants. If we got that much subsidy to toss around, do coal correctly.
IGCC is about 3x as effecient per energy input than normal coal plants.
And offers the real potential of carbon sequestration.
And then use Algae to <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0111/p01s03-sten.htm" target="_blank">cut down the remaining CO2 emmisions by 30%</a>
_
Besides which, how the hell are we supposed to tell other countries like Iran "You can't have nuke plants"
if we're expanding ours?
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle#Integrated_Gasification_Combined_Cycle_.28IGCC.29" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycl...ycle_.28IGCC.29</a>
-According to <a href="http://www.care-bears.com/CareBears/html/faq/index.html" target="_blank">this</a> scientific article the world generates approximately
3.5 metric Jigga-whats of happiness energy (down from 4.5 jigga-whats in the 1970s).
-Using only a small portion of the <a href="http://www.care-bears.com/CareBears/html/about/index.html" target="_blank">worlds reserves of happy thoughts</a>
many <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_Smurf" target="_blank">scientists</a> we could power more then twice of the worlds <a href="http://www.hotwheels.com/index_hwkids.aspx" target="_blank">vehicles</a>.
-Using the patented <a href="http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&fkr=1&from=R8&satitle=happy+thoughts+generator&category0=&submitSearch=Search" target="_blank">happy thoughts convertor</a> it is projected we can achieve a 1.5 or higher happy-thought wattage
per capita maximum drain from the resevoir to power each vehicle.
Many are skepticle of what they call our "outrageous" claims. However I can assure you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie" target="_blank">they are based completely in reality</a>.
This ad was paid for by <a href="http://www.itsatrap.net" target="_blank">CarebearTech Inc.</a>
Don't be ridiculous. The obvious solution is to simply murder all the people above 90kg and turn them into glue, glue which we will use to attach snails to skateboards. Thus we will be able to power over 70% of the world's bathroom-fixture power consumption needs indefinitely.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050419095118.htm" target="_blank">was this one glue</a> they designed which now has replaced fromaldahyde glues.
Ironically fromaldahyde glue is still used in China, to sell hardwood cabinets to the US.
But China doesn't allow those same cabinets to be sold in their own country :O
Uranium is in limited supply, if we really want to use renewable resources, I think our best bet are happy thoughts.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.careenergy.com/" target="_blank">http://www.careenergy.com/</a> (Real website)
<!--quoteo(post=1604339:date=Feb 7 2007, 03:04 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 7 2007, 03:04 AM) [snapback]1604339[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
which basically means the greatest pure fossil fuel usage is the tires, which I think are likely a pretty reasonable cost in retrospective. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually they got a solution for that too.
Bill Gates is handing a big chunk of money for a UC Berkeley start-up to go use yeast and sugar make compounds that are chemically identical to to existing petroleum fuels.
I'd assume that by the time they get it out "5 to 10 years" that the main usage for this would be petrochemicals.
_
But then again, I thought it was kind of ironic that in WW2, we used ethanol tires.
Cellulosic BioMass into Diesel fuel
<a href="http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070201LadischBio.html" target="_blank">http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070201LadischBio.html</a>
electric, and hibrid cars never challenge the REAL benzin 8 litres , V8 engined CARS <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":angry:" border="0" alt="mad-fix.gif" /> . Like mad max V8, and The others, like camaros, or mustangs .... or my faviroite V6 tiburon <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> . this is my word.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually they opened up a new way to get there.
<a href="http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/evs-22.html" target="_blank">This current production engine only</a> gets 135hp
But it's a fair upgrade over the previous 80hp
Whats really unique is that the previous engines used to be using physical rare-earth magnets.
This new engine uses electro magnets.
That opens the way for ever increasing horsepower.
_
In the short-term.
Diesel offers better horsepower than gasoline.
With better low end torque
And +20-40% better gas mileage ;D (+55% if using HCCI, and +67% if using ISS&HCCI)
And as of next year, diesel cars will be as squeeky clean in emmisions as a Prius.
_
Now when we're talking custom cars ;D
"Ian Wright has a car that blows away a Ferrari 360 Spider and a Porsche Carrera GT in drag races, and whose 0-to-60 acceleration time ranks it among the fastest production autos in the world. In fact, it's second only to the French-made Bugatti Veyron, a 1,000-horsepower, 16-cylinder beast that hits 60 mph half a second faster and goes for $1.25 million.
The key difference? The Bugatti gets eight miles per gallon. Wright's car? It runs off an electric battery.
Wright, a 50-year-old entrepreneur from New Zealand, thinks his electric car, the X1, can soon be made into a small-production roadster that car fanatics and weekend warriors will happily take home for about $100,000 - a quarter ton of batteries included. He has even launched a startup, called Wrightspeed, to custom-make and sell the cars."
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/04/technology/business2_wrightspeed/" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/04/technology...s2_wrightspeed/</a>
Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that this car accelerates faster than Ferraris, Lamborginis and Porches?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could see that, electric motors have instant full torque.
Howcome all of the hybride cars are ugly as hell...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't find them to be ugly at all. They're a refreshing change IMO