Car of The Future ?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Sep 20 2006, 01:16 PM) [snapback]322418[/snapback]</div>

OK, let me continue a bit more with this in a concise manner. Let's pretend that our three choices for vehicle power are:

1. Gasoline
2. H2 fuel cell
3. Battery electric vehicle (BEV)

1. To run a gasoline car, you need to first make the gasoline, and then burn it. Making gasoline requires about as much power input as my BEV requires to just drive. So you can make dirty electricity and then make gasoline out of it, or you can make dirty electricity and then directly charge your batteries and pollute no more. So with a BEV you avoid the extra pollution of burning the gasoline.

2. If an H2 fuel cell is even in the running here, the EV wins by a huge margin. Quite simply, it takes 3-4x as much of that dirty electricity to fuel up a FCV as it does to charge a BEV for the same distance. So instantly, the BEV is 3-4x as clean.

3. One benefit of any car you can charge from the grid is that it makes any power plant more efficient since most charging will be done at night, off peak. If power plants can maintain a more level output 24/7, they are more efficient. More efficiency translates into cheaper cost per unit of energy delivered. And as I said before, a BEV can be charged anywhere that there's electricity - and that electricity can come from any source. Personally, I grow my own on my garage roof with PV panels. In this way, I also don't have transmission losses in the power lines to get it to my house.

So there you go... does this answer the question, at least partially? BEVs can be operated cleanly - something that a gasoline car can never achieve. A FCV can also be operated as cleanly as a BEV... but you must first product 3-4x as much energy to start with.

 

I think it takes about 50 kWh to produce 1 kg of hydrogen from pure water at STP. That doesn't include the energy required to compress the h2 for storage. You can go a looooong way in an EV on 50 kWh. You'd also need a large solar array to produce meaningful amounts of hydrogen via electrolysis. Seems like it would be a lot cheaper to store solar energy in an additional battery for later use.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Sep 20 2006, 11:44 AM) [snapback]322446[/snapback]</div>

Don't worry. The humidity of the air depends upon the ability of the air to hold moisture which rises with the temperature. When the air can no longer hold moisture it falls out (most often as rain or snow). The good news is that water which is discharged into the atmosphere returns to the Hydrologic Cycle and does not deplete the oceans.

If you are not familiar with the term Hydrologic Cycle, it refers to the constant process of evaporation from the ocean, transport of moisture over the land where it rains or snows and eventually runs back to the ocean. In the process it disolves stuff which is why the ocean is constantly getting more salty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Sep 20 2006, 01:47 PM) [snapback]322448[/snapback]</div>

I don't doubt that this is possible. I only know that it would be FAR cheaper, and FAR less complex, and FAR less energy intensive to simply dump the solar power into batteries and call it a day.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Allannde @ Sep 20 2006, 02:15 PM) [snapback]322465[/snapback]</div>

... and polluted. Those oil-drips from ICE cars gotta go somewhere.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Sep 20 2006, 01:47 PM) [snapback]322449[/snapback]</div>

Great! I've been using one for years, and certainly they do work! I used to dump almost six gallons of water down the shower drain before installing mine. If you do buy one, please buy it through my link as it helps to support my site - much appreciated!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Sep 20 2006, 04:10 PM) [snapback]322461[/snapback]</div>

yes, got it. i actually got it with your first response but in rereading my post, it seemed that i was stating that my brain would never see the obvious. what i meant by this post was that my brain didn't reason the obvious before i asked my intial question. am i confusing you even more now?!?!? sorry to have put you thru the trouble of having to elaborate on what you made clear with your first answer. sniffle.

thanks for the education. now i feel dirty driving a prius :blink:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Sep 20 2006, 04:27 PM) [snapback]322472[/snapback]</div>

i saw that you get money from every order placed thru your link. no worries. consider this done. fyi, i also sent the link to my sister who is marginally environmentally inclined. i'm sure she'll want me to report on its effectiveness before she buys but i'd be happy to do this. ultimately, i do believe she'll be interested in this as well. i sent her the link thru your site too!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Sep 20 2006, 12:27 PM) [snapback]322472[/snapback]</div>

Amen! But we depart from the Topic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Sep 20 2006, 02:10 PM) [snapback]322462[/snapback]</div>

About 250 miles in an EV1 or 180 miles in the Rav4EV.... or 50 miles in a small FCV.

All these numbers are eaily supported... we're not making this up!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Sep 20 2006, 02:34 PM) [snapback]322476[/snapback]</div>

Ah, excellent. Then my work here is done.

The Prius is REALLY clean after the fuel has been pumped into it (and before the oil changes, etc). Yet the nagging fact is that it still requires that same icky gasoline that just about every other car on the road uses. Most of the oil is imported, you can't make it cleanly, you can't make it without electricity, and you sure as heck can't make it at home. (we could get into biodiesel here, but that'll weaken my point!)

Thanks for your comments. I did understand your first response post - I just had a bit more to say.

 

In response to Allannde

Ok so we have put more water into the atmosphere all over the world. I know that the atmosphere around the earth does not stay at 100% saturation. But with all the extra water vapor would the overall humidity/ saturation level increase. What are the affects of this? what about erosion? What would be the overall climate affect? Man cannot interfere with the environment and expect that their to be no reaction. Think of a city like LAA, LA is a dry area the humidity usually under 30%. What happens if all the cars in LA emit water vapor?

Think about the millions of gallons of water being pumped out of the oceans everyday and then being placed into the atmosphere. Is this water going to fall only over the oceans? What about the ecosystems surrounding the massive plants needed to suck up all that water? Have you ever been outside on a hot day and then it rains for like 40 minutes? You can see the steam in the air and it’s miserable, trees look a little wilted, animals look miserable. I don’t want it to be like that everyday during rush hour traffic, and eventually all day everyday in almost everyplace on earth.

I might be completely wrong on this if I am please let me know.

The more I think about this the more I agree with using battery electric vehicles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Sep 20 2006, 12:56 PM) [snapback]322494[/snapback]</div>

Hi IAO

Climatology is a big subject and I have spent years with it. The simple answer to your concern is that the amounts of water that we are talking about are very small in comparison to that which is required to affect the climate of the world. There are very few places in the world where too much water is a problem except for brief periods during floods and storms. Most of the world is water poor and is quite able to absorb more water. Most plants and animals struggle to find MORE water. This is not a matter to worry about.

Allan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Allannde @ Sep 20 2006, 05:59 PM) [snapback]322584[/snapback]</div>

... and I'll add that there are plenty of other issues to definitely be worried about - and most of them will make EVs shine.

 

Well then I guess that answers that then.
I agree all the issues make the ev shine above all else at the present time.
I live in a high rise so a plug in vehicle is something I cannot have as I have no place to plug it in. the longest distance I travel for important things is 40 miles round trip if that, so an ev makes perfect since to me.

I have some questions maybe you all would be able to direct me to a source of info.

Is it practical to have solar panels on a car to help charge the batteries on sunny days? Say like when you park outside at work for 8+ hours a day. What about having them function to give extra power wile driving. So you have something like a gas/electric/plug in/solar hybrid to maximize use of available energy. I know Mercedes offered at one-point solar panels to run the cooling system (fans) to keep the car cool on hot days, why not put that energy into the batteries on a hybrid. What about a ev/solar hybrid?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Sep 20 2006, 06:44 PM) [snapback]322611[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for your interest! I've got your answers... but not the time right now. I'll bet others will chime in with relevant stuff while I'm out having fun. If not, I'll get on it probably tomorrow!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Sep 20 2006, 02:56 PM) [snapback]322494[/snapback]</div>

Your car puts "water" in to the air! Power plants put water into the air. Burning hydrocarbons puts water in the air and it gets recycled. I would guess as it makes clouds that will decrease global warming by reflecting IR off the Earth a bit. Hydrogen "fuel" is neutral as far as water goes. It is largely made from water and returns to water. The problem is all the other "bits" in the conversion process. There appear to be ways to make coal a "cleaner" fuel. There are still problems generating electricity. We have a great distribution system for electricity in this country. The question is where can we get hydrogen and where will it be useful. To be fair there may be places where hydrogen may make sense. That will not be in most of the US. The present administration would like to link the present hydrocarbon economy based on coal and oil to a "hydrogen" economy. The only way a "hydrogen" economy will work to distribute "electrical" over production to hydrogen from many sources, like wind, tides, solar, for later distribution. We need some way to distribute temporary over production to storage and other uses. Many of these sources can be unpredictable in their out put. We need a rational storage system. Hydrogen may be the storage system for now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Sep 20 2006, 05:56 PM) [snapback]322494[/snapback]</div>

There are great reasons to favor an electric car, and many excellent reasons to think that hydrogen is a loser, but I wouldn't worry about the issue of water vapor. The amount is just too small compared to what's already in the air, and water circulates through the air so quickly that it just wouldn't matter.

Here's the calculation: if you took all the gallons of gasoline the US burns now, and assume we'd produce the equivalent gallons of water (vapor) from hydrogen, that annual output would amount to 0.0001% of total annual Earth rainfall (based on average rainfall of 36 inches per year over the entire earth's surface, which I believe is ballpark).

Ok, we only use a quarter of so of the world's gas, and it'll take more gallons of hydrogen to give us the energy equivalent of the gas we burn, so there's slack in that estimate, but I'm pretty sure the main point is correct: In terms of the average effect over the surface of the earth, the impact of water vapor from hydrogen powered cars should be negligible. There's just too much water already there, and it cycles in and out of the atmosphere too fast.

Another way to put this in perspective is that every day, a "medium sized" tree (whatever that might mean) transpires around 80 gallons of water. (Obviously, you can get a range on that figure, but again you get the drift). Call it 500 gallons a week. So, the "water vapor emissions" from a single tree in your yard will dwarf the water vapor emissions from a hydrogen car.

This is in total contrast to C02, where manmade sources are a substantial fraction of overall annual C02 production, and where the gas has a long lifetime in the atmosphere. Just the reverse of the situation with auto water vapor emissions.

Not that human activity can't change local climate w.r.t. humidity. I've heard that the Arizona cities that in the past were used as havens for severe allergy sufferers can no longer be used this way, as all the people who moved there planted irrigated lawns, flower beds, and trees, and used "swamp cooler" air conditioners. The result is higher airborne pollen loads from the irrigated plants and modestly higher local relative humidity. Large-scale irrigation using fossil water can apparently change local climates. But that's orders of magnitude different from a tankful of water per car per week.

So, I think it might get kind of muggy in a parking garage full of hydrogen cars, but the global impact of the water vapor emissions should be a non-issue. Having said that, hydrogen still seems to be a clear loser, for at least the reasons noted in this thread.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hdrygas @ Sep 20 2006, 06:55 PM) [snapback]322677[/snapback]</div>

Hi Henry

This may be the point of debate with the subject of Hydrogen. I have been of the impression that the ongoing energy cost of hydrogen as a storage medium is just too high when compared to batteries and the ability to modulate the production of electricity in all of the ways it is generated. Do you have more to contribute to this issue?

I don't see the sense in developing a new infrastructure when we could use and or expand the electrical generation and transmission system which is already in place and which would have other useful benefits by being expanded. Do you see benefits to a parallel infrastructure?

Allan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IAO @ Sep 20 2006, 06:44 PM) [snapback]322611[/snapback]</div>

In a world where we actually had large numbers of EVs instead of gas cars, places to plug in would be abundant. There would be outlets on street lights. There would be outlets in the parking lot at work. There would be chargers at shopping malls, restaurants and hotels. Charging at home would be the most convenient - yet wouldn't be mandatory.

The short answer here is that just about all EV makers ponder this... and decide on NO. The cost, weight, complexity and extra drag are not worth the extra few miles of range that would be available in perfect conditions. Solar panels belong on the roof of a building, or on a similar structure that keeps them oriented properly and out of the shade. If you put them on the car, you get no benefit if you park in a garage, under a tree, etc. In optimal conditions you could probably add 3-5 miles to your range on a perfect day. But on average through the year in even a good state for it, you're looking at maybe one mile extra per day. Simply not worth the extra expense of adding the panels.

The best way to makea n EV/Solar hybrid is to do exactly what I've done. Put PV on the roof of your home, and charge your BEV from them.

 

What? It doesn't fly? I'm not interested.

 

Solar plastics and glass (these technologies are coming of age but aren't there yet) will make sense in automobiles when the price of the products comes down low enough. I wouldn't be surprised to see them one day but at the present time they don't really help. The energy density is too low and the conversion efficiency isn't high enough as darell already pointed out.

 

Hi All,

Darelldd is right about the electric car. But there is one detail that is a problem. Its not a major detail to Darell, or 80 percent of the people that drive cars in California. Or even one half of the car buyers in the world in the next 20 years.

The FC car even has the same issue.

These cars do not operate at safe levels of accelleration and maximum speed for modern motoring requirements when the battery is below 10 degrees Fahrenheit. And there is no warming up on the run here. The battery due to its low thermal conductivy and size, would take the average commute (20 or so miles) to warm up. FC might warm up faster, but a FC needs to be warm even before operation, due to the need to have the PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) wet. Then once on the road the FC needs to keep itself above freezing, or the car will stop. The power spec on the Prius battery for example is 25 kw at 77 F, and .2 KW at 0 F!

I will also point out that just because the car makers are headquartered in locations where 10 degree Fahrenheit is an every year occurance, does not make it proper for them to deny the other half of the car buying public a totally appropriate, and uber-efficient vehicle.

The real problem I think these car makers have with electric cars, is they have would ship half each car's profit out to a battery company. Besides the NiMH battery patent being throttled for electric vehicle usage by an oil company. If ever there was a just case for nationallization of a private company, this is it! Eminant Domain really applies here! FC cars energy source could be made relatively cheap compared to 1/4 the car's mass in batteries that have to be produced in near semiconductor grade clean rooms.

 

So, let's say we somehow get Hydrogen running through our cars in just 3 years somehow, and everybody converts. Ideal situation for the environment right, with all that steam going out the back?

So they say that Hydrogen's coming from... sea water. So we're sucking in a ton of ocean water to supply all these cars with Hydrogen. Statistically in 3 years we should have about 1 billion cars world-wide. So we're going to run 1 billion cars by... draining the oceans of their water and splitting it, creating massive salt licks with the waste salt. I know the oceans are massive, but 1 billion cars? Seems like that might have an impact. An impact we might not enjoy.

We haven't screwed up the oceans much yet, but if we do we aren't going to like it.