2013-02-24, 19:18 | Link #341 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
@Solar power: Right now, it's not the greatest form of electricity generation. However, there isn't any hard things preventing the efficiency from increasing. It's more a matter of R&D then anything else. In more proven parts of the silicon industry (EG computer chips) you see very fast technological progress. If the money was there, the same could be true for Solar.
Governments could speed things along if they gave solar panel developers/manufacturers greater stability through feed in tariffs and other guaranteed prices. What's holding a lot of Solar (and other renewables) back is that they're afraid that tomorrow the price of Oil/Gas will drop again, rendering what seemed like a profit making project into one making severe losses. A feed in Tariff would belay those fears, as they'd be able to make reasonable profit projections of a product that usually takes years to pay off it's initial investment. |
2013-02-24, 20:08 | Link #342 | |||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
The reality is somewhat different for a variety of reasons. Don't get me wrong, I do think we will reach the point of Solar Power surpassing most everything else. But let's not get ahead of ourselves and screw it up. We need panels that have high effeciency, not 100%, hell not even 70% to meet our needs, but 50-60% range would make it a reality that is cost effective and efficient enough to be practical. And there are those working on said types of Solar Panels right now. Quote:
We cannot escape the problem of useing batteries (at least not right now), however, we can reduce the size (and thus pollution) of lithim-ion batteries by using them in Hydro-Electric vehicles (been reading more about them today, and I like what I read). Hydro-Electric gives us the benefit of a small battery (for the electric motor) and the hydrogen to charge the battery all within the vehicle so no strain on the power grid. Ultimately a truly Solar Powered vehicle would meet my standards but that is so far off that I'll be dead before it happens, though some of you might live to see it. Quote:
I know we can't get 100% clean, but we need to get as close as we can and still maintain our civilization which is why I want to see all avenues pursued to achieve that goal. What aggrivates me is when someone tries to close one avenue by claiming that a current technology will solve all our power needs. It's going to take a combination of technologies, not just any one. Quote:
There is so much that could have been done in the clean up, should have been done to prevent it in the first place, and needs to be done to stop it every happening again....not a good subject for me, makes me very angry. Quote:
However, my point is that we shouldn't abandon either of them. Electric is only so good, and the same can be said of Hydrogen. A marriage of both technologies holds more promise than either of them by themselves. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That requires tax money, but getting the idiots in congress or the white house to agree on who to tax, how, and how much is why we have gridlock. I honestly don't think any of them (Dem or GOP) want to solve these problems. Otherwise they would have started on it in the 1970s during the oil embargo when they should have realized that our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels was a bad idea that needed fixing. It's not a matter of the few cars on the road using pure electric right now, it is when the shift comes to ALL cars going to an alternative that power needs cannot be met wtih current Solar Panel technology (unless we cover the landscape with Solar Panels on roofs, over parking lots, etc. which is feasable). Quote:
Ultimately the goal of hydrogen fuel is to be able to pour water into your tank without the need for a compressed liquid hydrogen or cracking. We're still a ways off from that, but that is the goal and a good one. That's why I said electric is a stop-gap measure. If engineers and/or chemists can figure out how to crack water inside the vehicle and provide direct hydrogen gas from water stored onboard, then that would be the best fuel source (of those under development) outside of an actual Solar Powered car. Quote:
I meant that Solar Panels need help to charge the car in the same manner as a normal vehicle. Let me put it differently. A "quick" recharge of an EV with the best Solar Panel recharging equipment takes a minimum of 30 minutes. A refuel at the pump for hydrogen or gasoline takes 3 minutes. As for business or homes, they don't consume much power as it is compared to a factory that manufactures goods. I imagine at some point in the near future Solar Panel technology will be able to provide the level of power needed for a factory, but right now it isn't there. In other words, have patience. Quote:
However, we have to face the reality of what we are living in right now and see that a basket of technologies is going to be required to get us off hydrocarbons. It's going to take more than 40% peak power to make this work in the short term. Long term I can see Solar as providing most, if not all of the world's power, but that is still far into the future. So yes, additional power is needed for electric cars (as a whole, not individually) to work in society. I think we had a misunderstanding there. Quote:
Provided the nuclear power plants are produced with all of the proper safety features they are fine, but recently, there is a bit of scandal brewing over nuclear power plants. I agree that coal has simply got to go. It was good when it was the best technology for the job, but now it needs to be retired. However, that said, we need to go about transfering from coal to better power sources as smoothly as possible without destroying the flow of power to consumers. Again, a group of new technologies is the best way to go about this. Combine Solar, Hydrogen, and nuclear (if we must). Italy has had a succesful hydrogen power plant for years now. I'd like to see that type of thing developed and expanded here in the US on a larger scale (even if natural gas has to be used). Quote:
Quote:
I had no idea, I'm so used to seeing the "air-powered" car used by anti-Hydrogen types that think we can never get off fossil-fuels that I thought you were using it as a pejorative. I stand corrected. That is actually really neat. Quote:
We need Panels that can reliably collect 50% (at least) power and provide that power to the grid continuously no matter the load. Unless there is a drop in population, and thus power consumption, on a large scale, we are going to see power needs rise with or without pure electric cars. That's why I'm harping on a Hydro-electric hybrid, it metaphorically kills two birds with one stone. The power for the car is generated by a clean fuel source, the battery for the car is relatively small reducing the toxicity of recycling, and the emmissions are water vapor. Is it perfect? No. But it is better than either technology by itself until Solar Panels reach a point that direct Solar can power a vehicle. Oddly enought Kaijo, I think we are mostly on the same "page" here with regard to the need for alternative fuels/energy to that of hydrocarbons, even if we may have minor disagreements on how we as a society should go about it.
__________________
|
|||||||||||||||
2013-02-24, 21:22 | Link #343 |
Banned
|
I think we are somewhat on the same page here, and for what it is worth, I am not saying to stop research on hydrogen. Just that electric cars are ready *now* and offer a HUGE benefit over gas vehicles. Considering the polluting and oil nature of gas vehicles, let's do what we can to get them off the road now. Exchange the huge polluting vehicle for something MUCH less polluting. Maybe, in the future, if Hydrogen works out, we can do something with it. But not right now.
Although, I think there might be a minor misunderstanding here. You seem to be operating under the assumption that you will just pour water into your car to have it go. That's not how a hydrogen car would function. Instead, you would have to put pure hydrogen into your car, which would then combine it with oxygen from the air to create water (or water vapor). It takes energy to crack HO2 apart into hydrogen and oxygen, but you get energy by recombining the two. So, even in a hydrogen car, you are using hydrogen to create electricity, and the electricity to run the car. Whereas an electric car cuts out the middle step and just focuses on electricity. Hydrogen is essentially more of an energy storage compound, like a battery; not energy generation. It takes energy to make hydrogen, and thus when you ultimately use it to power something, you're getting less energy from it than it took you to make it. That's the biggest issue with it. I will say that hydrogen compares favorably as far as energy storage goes, compared to gasoline. The main problem is that it requires a MUCH heavier and bulkier tank to store the gas. A heavier car will require more energy to run, so this is something you have to keep in mind. The lighter you can make your car, the less energy it takes to move it. There have been some experiments with small marble-like pellets, but that is proving to be even heavier. The other main benefit is the ability to use gasoline as a fuel until a hydrogen infrastructure is in place. This is the major reason why the hydrogen car has any real traction, because the oil companies would rather people buy hydrogen cars then electric cars, so they can sell more oil. Thus, what you usually see pushed, are fuel cells which can do both gasoline and hydrogen. I'd encourage you to read a book called "The Hype about Hydrogen". Despite the title, it is written by a "hydrogen realist" who knows what he is talking about. He knows the potential, but also knows that it has a looong way to go, currently. There are engineering problems we haven't been able to surmount. While he figures we eventually will, the fact remains that we have technology NOW which is just as good. Again, not saying to stop working on hydrogen, as a breakthrough could make it ideal. But electric cars work now, and so let's do that. I think you can agree to that much, since it does look like we mostly agree on things. One other thing that isn't mentioned, is that an electric car is vastly cheaper to maintain, due to less moving parts (this is partly why GM helped kill their electric car, the EV1). The more you put into a car, the more it will cost to maintain it. Both an electric car and a hydrogen car will have batteries (and quite a few of them, as the benefits of regenerative braking are much too good to pass up). Hydrogen cars add more parts in the form of fuel cells, which means there are naturally more maintenance costs. And lastly, about solar power... yes, that chart was about peak, but remember, we are talking about mostly deserts here. They get peak sun practically every day. Even if we assume they only get half of that peak on average, we can simply double the number of panels to get the energy we need, and it still takes up an incredibly small fraction of Earth's land area. I don't know what else to tell you, other than countries like Germany and China are going full bore on solar power now, to great benefit. It is a mature technology, and there are companies in the US which will install solar panels for you, that eventually pay for themselves after 3 to 10 years. You say we need 50% panels, but that's not a good idea. Remember, the more energy they absorb, the more heat they build up. Too much energy, and they melt and become non-functional, unless you have some clever cooling options. I've seen a few; mainly one that rotated a kind of "tree" of panels slowly, thus giving the panels not facing the sun, time to cool down a bit. But that required energy. 20-30% is pretty much idea, because then they don't get warm enough to fail. In most areas, they can radiate enough of the heat to keep functioning. If you want to know how far solar panels have come, recognize that we can keep a solar powered aircraft aloft indefinitely! NASA's Pathfinder project(nonpiloted drone) demonstrated that you could keep a solar-powered aircraft aloft even during the night, and I'd keep an eye on the Solar Impulse project. It's actually piloted, and has already made a 24 hour trip. The next goal is to circumvent the globe in 20-25 days (in 3-4 day hops to change pilots), but eventually have a full, around the world trip with a later two-seater. And the solar powered car you want is practically here. Only, instead of taking the solar panels with you (which add extra weight and thus increase energy expenditure), you simply stop at places with solar powered charging. From that point of view, it makes little sense to carry solar panels with you. In 10-15 years, every metropolitan and suburb will have solar paneled charging areas. Business centers will have them. Parking garages will have them. Restaurants and shopping malls. In fact, I usually see the charging spots closest to the door at places like Walmart or near the elevator in parking garages. So not only are you getting a free charge, but you get the closest parking spots, too! Honestly, the only two reasons why I don't get an electric car now(if I needed a new car now, it would be a Volt), one of which is partly because I want to get more use out of my current car. But the other main reason is I am on the second floor in a condo complex. There are no charging stations here yet (though I've seen quite a few around in my suburb and in Seattle). I'd like to be able to plug in at night, which I can't do yet. So, I'm hoping in 10 years I'll either move to some place that has charging stations, or convince my condo association to invest in some. Or somehow run a cable up to my condo, heh. |
2013-02-25, 00:54 | Link #344 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
One of the problems with being optimistic about EV is that it was 20 or so years ago that they said we'd all be driving EV in 10-15 years. California even mandated by law that a certain percentage of all cars sold in California would have to be EV by I think 2010. It was nowhere near that percentage.
__________________
|
2013-02-25, 08:27 | Link #345 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-02-25, 17:32 | Link #346 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Someone increase the NASA budget already:
Quote:
If NASA had a budget even 25% of the DoD... just think of what could have been done already...
__________________
|
|
2013-02-25, 18:22 | Link #347 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
In the "how stupid do you have to be to forget to breathe" department, Teabaggers and the extreme rights go ballistic because the First Lady took part in a small part of the Oscars last night. They get nearly every aspect wrong, of course, in the froth and spittle.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...13/02/25/61190 http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...he_oscars.html The stupid burns and stings to even stand near (last 50 years at least of First Ladies participating in the arts, education, even picking up litter). (note to any of the stupid before they whine: Ronald Reagan also taped his own video message for the 53rd Academy Awards in 1981)
__________________
|
2013-02-25, 18:59 | Link #349 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-02-25, 21:16 | Link #351 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
As for motorcycles, I can think of many reasons. You're exposed to the environment, they're more dangerous than cars, they have extremely limited storage capacity. Sure, we can redesign many motorcycles to be enclosed, easier to handle (like the "motor tricycles"), and to have more storage space... but I don't think that would be popular. I got my motorcycle license for the fuel efficiency factor, but I have never met any motorcycle rider who stated that as their reason. It's an interesting idea, but we're having a hard enough time of moving people away from huge vehicles over to tiny cars; why would they make the jump to an even tinier vehicle that may lack the "coolness" factor of a traditional motorcycle?
__________________
|
|
2013-02-25, 21:21 | Link #352 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Quote:
Personally, I'm a good driver - one of the more smarter ones. However, I don't trust myself with a motorcycle either. Yet, if I were to own one, that'd motivate me to travel around more. Having a car is nice - but traveling around with it can be a pain in the ass... especially to large cities where parking is an issue.
__________________
|
|
2013-02-26, 18:28 | Link #353 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCBa7te1thk&sns=em
Yes, bio-diesel does come from food products, including water oil from fryers. Woukd it not be better to actually burn said waste oil, than dump it? And since we produce soy beans more than anything it should be cheap. Ethanol was a by product of corn, and just as everybody was to jump on the bandwagon, the price of corn suddenly skyrocketed. The same could happen with soybeans too, but it's an abundant product. If not motorcycles, why not those vehicles than run on engines measured in cc instead of cid? Like the Honda Beat, or the older Mini Cooper?
__________________
Last edited by Lost Cause; 2013-02-26 at 19:39. |
2013-02-26, 19:35 | Link #354 | |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
No CPAC Invite for Christie Because of ‘Limited Future’ in Republican Party
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...eliana-johnson Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-02-26, 19:41 | Link #355 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
I think this means he is not in the running for the 2016 presidential nomination.
__________________
|
|
2013-02-26, 20:00 | Link #356 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
Not surprising considering that New Jersey has never been a gun friendly state.
Yet I like the guy, he has moxy, and did a hell of a job after Sandy hit them! Politics aside I rather like the guy and wouldn't be surprised if he threw his hat in the ring in 2016! Did you also see where the media tried to down play his possibilities just because of his weight?
__________________
|
2013-02-26, 20:08 | Link #357 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
I drive a small pickup myself, but I need the storage space for my work, so that couldn't be helped. It's actually pretty comparable in terms of fuel efficiency to the cheapo car I drove as a high school student - a 98 Volvo S70. |
|
2013-02-26, 20:09 | Link #358 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-02-26, 20:19 | Link #360 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
Quote:
The flip side being freedom of movement, maneuverability, and of course gas mileage! As for storage space, you'd be surprised how much you can put in saddle bags, and if neccesary get a side car, they were making a comeback a few years ago, or even a small trailer.
__________________
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|