Interesting. I like that they're using a turbine - that's cool. Pretty similar in concept to the Prius - in this case it sounds like the combustion engine is just there to drive a generator, in which case turbines are definitely proven technology. An electric car, with it's own built in power plant. I strongly doubt anyone will actually produce the car, but we can hope.

I love reading about these electric cars. I just wish I had a ballpark figure to attach to it. I know the Tesla is 90k+

Right now this looks to be just a concept.....with a lot of bait to capture funding. A close look at the web site shows that they need "marketing" people to bring in the funding. To me that sets off warning bells because they do not look to actually build anything for use, only autos for racing in 2009. The other thing is that in very fine print it the lower right corner says they are a "non-profit" organization. No real auto company is a non-profit organization. While they claim they are making an automobile for the "masses", they actually are a R&D corporation that is willing to "license" their technology....that they have yet to develop. To summarize their business plan looks to be:

1) Get people to invest in their winning the Automotive X prize in 2009.
2) Build a auto or two to race.
3) If they win, license the stuff they developed to make even more money.

Tesla is actually building a production plant. This group is riding their coat-tails with a story that is long on hype and short on everything else.

(P.S. If they do not win, the business plan fails, and the investors......)

In the article they say that microturbines are the most efficient type of engine for this purpose, but this isn't true. Rover used microturbines in cars here in the 70s, and they were very inefficient. A small turbine is much less efficient than a large one, partly due to heat loss, and struggles to reach 30% efficiency.

By contrast, a normal otto-cycle petrol engine manages about 25% efficiency, the Prius "Atkinson/Miller" type engine about 35% efficiency, most road going diesels about 40-42% efficiency (although VW claim the engine from the Lupo 3L hits 51% efficiency). So a turbine, although small and light, is not the best for this application.

-deleted, duplicate (no response when posting)-

-deleted, duplicate (no response when posting)-

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Jul 30 2007, 11:24 AM) [snapback]487339[/snapback]</div>

Is this still true, more than 30 years later? At least one microturbine manufacturer claims 50% efficiency, using ceramic components and multiple stages (they say it's "well above the performance of any previous turbine, microturbine, or other combustion technology").
Wilson Turbopower

Interesting concept, those are pretty remarkable heat exchangers and certainly help things, but that's still a large turbine. 400 hp output is about 10 times too big for a series hybrid, but making them smaller always reduces efficiency. Nevertheless, looks good for on site CHP.

Toyota's first hybrid prototype was such series hybrid uisng micro-turbine in 1970's.
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/01-e.html
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf/018e.pdf
http://www.hybridsynergydrive.com/en/history.html

Ken@Japan

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ken1784 @ Jul 30 2007, 06:39 AM) [snapback]487390[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the links. That micro turbine genset has plenty of cool factor. From a practical standpoint I suppose they might not be efficient enough. Some of the large ones that burn natural gas used for peak demand power plants claim 60% efficiency using cogeneration after stages. Not sure that could be applied to a compact portable solution.

However, they can be made to be flexible on fuel selection, gasoline, diesel, E85, ethanol, butanol, natural gas, kerosene, JP or many other things could be used for fuel in the same engine.