 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / February 2007Running a car on water via electrolysis
Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems people just want to debunk the idea of combusting hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion engine, but yet again it seems a company has produced the technology to make it happen: http://hytechapps.com/company/press Meanwhile the mafia known as the oil industry are making tens of billions more dollars every year and their pals in the dying US auto industry even now can't comprehend that consumers don't want gasoline-guzzlers. ---------------------------- > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > can't comprehend that consumers don't want > gasoline-guzzlers. In other words you and the Aquagen people are claiming that, in effect, more energy can be produced than that needed to produce it. I also note that it is an additive but if it worked that well, it wouled be a primary source of perpetual energy. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. Can I sell you a slightly used bridge?  SignatureDon Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca remove the X to answer > > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems > > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is an additive but if it worked that well, it wouled be a primary source of > perpetual energy. Yes we do it all the time with GPS, Which is why we're constantly Exxon, that you retards are not only morons, you're f.cking syncopated NEW JERSEY MORONS. > Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. > Can I sell you a slightly used bridge? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Don Kelly d...@shawcross.ca > remove the X to answer >> > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems >> > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > only morons, you're f.cking > syncopated NEW JERSEY MORONS. ------------------- Never been in New Jersey. Never been an Exxon fan. However, with regard to any basic science, it appears that your calling me a moron, means that you think that I know more than you. That is right, Thank you. SignatureDon Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca remove the X to answer ---------------------------- > <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > any basic science, it appears that your calling me a moron, means that you > think that I know more than you. That is right, Thank you. New Jersery is not a place you got to. Like Canadian and Alaskan morons it comes to you to collect Exxon/Disney Tolls. > -- > > Don Kelly d...@shawcross.ca > remove the X to answer > ---------------------------- > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://hytechapps.com/company/press Sure you can burn hydrogen in an ICE. Just as you can burn lots of gases. It's simply very expensive and inefficient. Graham On Feb 12, 10:06 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems > > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Graham No, it isn't that hard nor expensive. The same technology that converts engines to run on natural gas can run hydrogen with some adjustment. Now, the big kicker is that hydrogen is very low octane, so something must be done about that. EGR in massive amounts is one solution. Tankage is a problem- compressed hydrogen provides limited range as the size of the tank in cubic foot per megajoule of energy is large. And of course, as others are pointing out, electrolysis is not free- you need to put in as much or more energy than you get out. www.devilfinder.com How to make your own automobile fuel Start growing that corn and get busy. cuhulin > On Feb 12, 10:06 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > so something must be done about that. EGR in massive amounts is one > solution. The *hydrogen* is expensive ! Graham > On Feb 12, 10:06 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> > Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems >> > people just want to debunk the idea of combusting >> > hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion >> > engine "Debunk" is the correct word, and for almost 80 years. I guess a fool really is born every minute. >>, but yet again it seems a snip > And of course, as others are pointing out, electrolysis is not free- > you need to put in as much or more energy than you get out. Not "as much". Not even "or more". A lot more. So much that you would find a way to use the energy directly. Al G Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in article <1171378650.180468.316240@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>... > On Feb 12, 10:06 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No, it isn't that hard nor expensive. Tell that to Billings Research in Provo, Utah. They've been trying for 30 years to make hydrogen work like propane. > The same technology that > converts engines to run on natural gas can run hydrogen with some > adjustment. Now, the big kicker is that hydrogen is very low octane, > so something must be done about that. EGR in massive amounts is one > solution. ....which will only exacerbate hydrogen's tendencies to backfire. >......... >> The same technology that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >....which will only exacerbate hydrogen's tendencies to backfire. Hydrogen does have advantages if used in fuel cells, and that is the reason for it's use, not an ICE. Hydrogen is as good as gasoline for an EV of any kind, like HEV, PHEV, etc. Joe Fischer >>......... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hydrogen does have advantages if used in > fuel cells... Gee, where can I buy a fuel cell vehicle for less than a million bucks? When will you get your head out of your a.s? "Joe Fischer" <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote in message > Hydrogen does have advantages if used in > fuel cells, and that is the reason for it's use, not an ICE. Hydrogen powered ICE engines are used in the transport buses at Frankfort airport right now. The technology is in its infancy, but it works. Fuel cells are fine too, but not the only way to use hydrogen. > "Joe Fischer" <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hydrogen powered ICE engines are used in the transport buses at Frankfort > airport right now. The technology is in its infancy, but it works. Where do they get the hydrogen? > Fuel cells are fine too, but not the only way to use hydrogen. Fuel cells are fine for the space shuttle. No regular stiff can ever afford them. > Fuel cells are fine for the space shuttle. No regular stiff can ever > afford them. Not quite true. Kristian Michelsens Institute had a contract to develop fuel cells, and I have personally seen the product. Small ( about a foot on each side), relatively inexpensive, and able to generage about 17 KWH. That would equate to roughly 20 horsepower ( dont flame me on decimal points, please), which is not a lot, but is enough for small cars. Remember what the old original VW used to produce? There is no one answer. But it is my believe that as energy expenses begin to increase geometrically, we will have to do everything we can to stay in the game. This bullshit about there being plenty of oil out there has to be rationalized. Yes, there is still a lot of oil and gas, but we own less and less of it. >>Fuel cells are fine for the space shuttle. No regular stiff can ever >>afford them. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cars. Remember > what the old original VW used to produce? I had owned a lot of VW's. So, what is the cost per kw for these things? > There is no one answer. But it is my believe that as energy expenses begin > to increase > geometrically, we will have to do everything we can to stay in the game. I agree. My concern is the result of demand destruction and the impact to the world's economies. > This bullshit about there being plenty of oil out there has to be > rationalized. Yes, there is > still a lot of oil and gas, but we own less and less of it. 'How much' is greatly overstated when capacity/demand disparity is not addressed. Peak oil is about capacity/demand, not about potential. > Small ( about a foot on each side), relatively > inexpensive, and able to generate about 17 kWh. Ok, this is in units of energy. > That would equate to roughly 20 horsepower > ( don't flame me on decimal points, please), I won't. However, this is in units of power. Which is it? Energy or power? > which is not a lot, but is enough for small > cars. Remember what the old original VW used > to produce? > There is no one answer. But it is my believe > that as energy expenses begin to increase > geometrically, we will have to do everything > we can to stay in the game. > This bullshit about there being plenty of oil > out there has to be rationalized. Yes, there > is still a lot of oil and gas, but we own less > and less of it. The problem is, actually, that you consume more fossil fuel to run a car on hydrogen, whether you use an ICE or fuel cell, than you would if you had never made the hydrogen in the first place. Duane SignatureHome of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm [*] Powered by \ \ \ //| Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / | Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / | Red Rock Energy \ \ / / | Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / | 1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts | White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ | USA 55110-3364 === \ | (651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ | redrok@redrok.com (my email: address) \ | http://www.redrok.com (Web site) === >The problem is, actually, that you consume more >fossil fuel to run a car on hydrogen, whether >you use an ICE or fuel cell, than you would if you >had never made the hydrogen in the first place. >Duane Not if a steam driven generator is used to produce the hydrogen and the steam is produced by a concentrating solar collector with a sun tracker. :-) Joe Fischer > >The problem is, actually, that you consume more > >fossil fuel to run a car on hydrogen, whether [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > produce the hydrogen and the steam is produced > by a concentrating solar collector with a sun tracker. :-) Has anyone done this yet ? Where are these solar power stations ? Graham > The problem is, actually, that you consume more > fossil fuel to run a car on hydrogen, whether > you use an ICE or fuel cell, than you would if you > had never made the hydrogen in the first place. You're absolutely right and it pollutes more too. Graham is, actually, that you consume more > fossil fuel to run a car on hydrogen, whether > you use an ICE or fuel cell, than you would if you > had never made the hydrogen in the first place. > > Duane I dont argue with you on this, Duane. Using fossil fuel to make hydrogen is gilding the lilly. I have always said that hydrogen is a good fuel, but getting it cheaply is the problem. Transportation and storage are issues, but can be achieved, in time. > "Duane C. Johnson" <redrok@redrok.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I have always said that hydrogen is a good fuel, Not really. It's rather a bad fuel in most respects. > but getting it cheaply is the problem. Transportation and storage are issues, > but can be achieved, in time. How do you plan to stop the problem of hydrogen embrittlement ? Another big issue is its miserable volumetric energy density. You can't just put the fuel tank under the boot/trunk with hydrogen ! Graham > "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fuel cells, and I have personally seen the product. Small ( about a foot on > each side), relatively inexpensive, Inexpensive ? No way. They need expensive materials for the catalysts. > and able to generage about 17 KWH. kW not kWh. > That would equate to roughly 20 horsepower ( dont flame > me on decimal points, please), which is not a lot, but is enough for small > cars. Remember what the old original VW used to produce? A lot more than 20 hp. Graham >> Remember what the old original VW used to produce? > > A lot more than 20 hp. The first ones had 25 hp, increased in 1954 to 30 hp. I don't count the pre-war models which had less than 25 I think. Then there was the Citroen 2CV in 1939 which originally had 9 hp NSU Max: 20 hp in 1953 oder 1954 Renault R4: 26 hp in 1961 Fiat 500: 13 hp in 1936 ... lots more Jochen > >> Remember what the old original VW used to produce? > > > > A lot more than 20 hp. > > The first ones had 25 hp, increased in 1954 to 30 hp. I don't > count the pre-war models which had less than 25 I think. There were no pre-war VWs ( maybe demonstration models but no production ones ) ! There weren't even any made during the war in fact ! > Then there was the Citroen 2CV in 1939 which originally had > 9 hp [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fiat 500: 13 hp in 1936 > ... lots more Have you driven any of these ? I have btw. Graham > There were no pre-war VWs ( maybe demonstration models but no > production ones ) I wasn't sure if they had sold maybe a handful. > ! There weren't even any made during the war in fact ! Not the 'Beetle' ('KdF-Wagen'), but the army version ('Kübelwagen'), Prototype in 1939, production between 1940 and 1945, 52000 in total, engines ranging from 23.5 hp to 24.5 hp > Have you driven any of these ? I have btw. Driven? Yes - the 2CV and the R4, and I was the proud owner of an 1968 Beetle with a whopping 40 hp ;-) Jochen > > "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Graham Pardon. It should have been kilowatts, not KWH... My bad. > "Joe Fischer" <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Fuel cells are fine too, but not the only way to use hydrogen. It's the only current method that makes sense. What's the point of using a "fuel" that takes more energy to produce than it yields, and then pumping it into an ICE that gets what, maybe 25% efficiency? 30% on a good day? Might as well just burn gasoline, it's more efficient. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> "Joe Fischer" <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > then pumping it into an ICE that gets what, maybe 25% efficiency? 30% > on a good day? I've seen this number repeated for the last day. Where does it come from? Coal currently runs 30%. Buy the time you get coal's heating value to the wheels of a car via electrolyses, you get < 5%. >>> "Joe Fischer" <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote in message >>>> Hydrogen does have advantages if used in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I've seen this number repeated for the last day. Where does it come >from? ICE efficiency is well known, for old cars it may be as low as 15 percent, some diesels and hybrids about 25 or 30 percent, and the monster engines as big as a house can get 40 or 50 percent, but they might not be good as power plants. >Coal currently runs 30%. Buy the time you get coal's heating value >to the wheels of a car via electrolyses, you get < 5%. It's magic, an electric car might get 20 miles on less than a dollar of electricity, but an ICE car might only get 20 MPG, or more than two dollars. You seem uninformed about this. The fact that hydrogen powered fuel cell cars may make sense may only be because fuel cell cars ARE electric cars. The reason hybrids get good mileage is because they ARE electric cars. There needs to be more appreciation of the fact that electric cars are the future, whether they are gasoline hybrid electric, diesel hybrid electric, fuel cell electric, or plug-in electric. Joe Fischer > There needs to be more appreciation of > the fact that electric cars are the future, whether > they are gasoline hybrid electric, diesel hybrid > electric, fuel cell electric, or plug-in electric. You're right there Joe. Just the ability to reclaim their kinetic energy when braking makes them very attractive. The other neat thing is that the ICE in a hybrid doesn't have to be sized for the peak power demand ( as when accelerating ) it only needs to be sized for the average power since the battery 'takes the strain'. Possibly no more than 20kW ( say 500cc ). Graham >> There needs to be more appreciation of >>the fact that electric cars are the future, whether [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You're right there Joe. Just the ability to reclaim their kinetic energy when > braking makes them very attractive. HEV and EV impact should total 10% in a couple of decades. In the mean time, China and India want to aspire as consumers. AAAAAAre you getting this? > >> There needs to be more appreciation of > >>the fact that electric cars are the future, whether [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > HEV and EV impact should total 10% in a couple of decades. I'd be very surprised if it's as low as that. > In the mean time, China and India want to aspire as consumers. Most of them aren't yet in a position to buy cars. > AAAAAAre you getting this? I know it. Graham > I know it. How godly. > > I know it. > > How godly. How snippy ! Get over yourself. You *are not* some genius in the wilderness. Graham >>>>"Joe Fischer" <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ICE efficiency is well known... Idiot. Coal heating value to wheels is the issue. Yes, you are still an idiot........ > >> "Joe Fischer" <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote in message > >> > >>> Hydrogen does have advantages if used in fuel cells, What advantages ? > >>>and that is the reason for it's use, not an ICE. > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > from? Coal currently runs 30%. Buy the time you get coal's heating value > to the wheels of a car via electrolyses, you get < 5%. Electricity generation is ~ 35% efficient. Hydrogen made by electrolysis is about 50% efficient. Hydrogen burnt as a fuel in an ICE is about 25% efficient. Hydrogen burnt in a fuel cell is about 50% efficient. Hydrogen fuel cell EV > ~ 8% efficent. Hydrogen ICE vehicle > ~ 4% effcient. Graham >>I've seen this number repeated for the last day. Where does it come >>from? Coal currently runs 30%. Buy the time you get coal's heating value >>to the wheels of a car via electrolyses, you get < 5%. > > Electricity generation is ~ 35% efficient. 30% coal in the U.S. > Hydrogen made by electrolysis is about 50% efficient. More like >70% > Hydrogen burnt as a fuel in an ICE is about 25% efficient. Maybe. > Hydrogen burnt in a fuel cell is about 50% efficient. What fuel cell?????? > Hydrogen fuel cell EV > ~ 8% efficent. > Hydrogen ICE vehicle > ~ 4% effcient. You forgot the losses in handling, but not a biggy. 5% the last time I bothered. > >>I've seen this number repeated for the last day. Where does it come > >>from? Coal currently runs 30%. Buy the time you get coal's heating value [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 30% coal in the U.S. ~ 35% here AIUI ( less coal ). > > Hydrogen made by electrolysis is about 50% efficient. > > More like >70% Factor in compression or liquefaction for storage and it'll be closer to 50%. > > Hydrogen burnt as a fuel in an ICE is about 25% efficient. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What fuel cell?????? A Hydrogen fuel cell. > > Hydrogen fuel cell EV > ~ 8% efficent. > > Hydrogen ICE vehicle > ~ 4% effcient. > > You forgot the losses in handling, but not a biggy. > > 5% the last time I bothered. The overall numbers are about right. They make a gasoline engine look really good ! Graham > >>I've seen this number repeated for the last day. Where does it come > >>from? Coal currently runs 30%. Buy the time you get coal's heating value [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > 5% the last time I bothered. But that's because the only heating value coal ever had or ever will have is heating steel. The tires are just electrolytic road taxes you pay to idiots like Washington. >>> "Joe Fischer" <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > from? Coal currently runs 30%. Buy the time you get coal's heating value > to the wheels of a car via electrolyses, you get < 5%. I'm talking about the efficiency of the ICE itself. You are correct that there are even more inefficiencies in the system. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > It's the only current method that makes sense. What's the point of > using a "fuel" that takes more energy to produce than it yields, and > then pumping it into an ICE that gets what, maybe 25% efficiency? 30% > on a good day? Might as well just burn gasoline, it's more efficient. Think outside the box, Nate. We can burn gasoline as long as we have it. We are now deficient in hydrocarbon energy production. Our cashews are in the hands of foreign governments. It is not a good situation. Efficiency doesnt mean anything if you have to start walking to work. Inefficient energy processes then begin to take on importance. > We are now deficient in hydrocarbon energy production. Where are the queues then ? Graham > > We are now deficient in hydrocarbon energy production. > > Where are the queues then ? > > Graham We are lucky that we havent had queues to any great extent since the Arab oil embargo. (Temporary upsets after the American hurricanes Katrina and Rita not counted). WE (the USA) have a shortage of oil and gas. Yes, we can still buy it, import it, etc but the shortage here is real. Demands are being met, at present, but world consumption is still on a faster track than world oil discoveries. I am looing 'down the road', not 'down the road to the nearest gasoline station'. > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > import it, etc but the shortage here is real. Demands are being met, at > present, That actually means there is no shortage ! > but world consumption is still on a faster track than world oil discoveries. It sounds like something needs to be done about that then ! > I am looing 'down the road', not 'down the road to the nearest gasoline > station'. Sure, me too. Graham >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That actually means there is no shortage ! Yes Eyesore, circle the wagons. Obfuscation is your forte. >>It's the only current method that makes sense. What's the point of >>using a "fuel" that takes more energy to produce than it yields, and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Inefficient > energy processes then begin to take on importance. If you're relying on a hydrogen-powered ICE, I'm still going to be walking to work, because it still needs fossil fuel input to the loop to power the electrolysis. The whole point is that using a fossil fuel to power electrolysis to create hydrogen to fuel an ICE is a hell of a lot less efficient than just burning the fossil fuel in the ICE directly. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > The whole point is that using a fossil fuel to power electrolysis to create > hydrogen to fuel an ICE is a hell of a lot less efficient than just burning > the fossil fuel in the ICE directly. By a factor of about 10:1 ! Graham >>>It's the only current method that makes sense. What's the point of >>>using a "fuel" that takes more energy to produce than it yields, and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > electrolysis to create hydrogen to fuel an ICE is a hell of a lot less > efficient than just burning the fossil fuel in the ICE directly. That's simply not true. It is perfectly possible to power the electrolysis with renewable energy sources such as tidal, solar or wind power. > "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message > >> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > That's simply not true. It is perfectly possible to power the electrolysis > with renewable energy sources such as tidal, solar or wind power. Not really. Energy from tide, solar and wind is so sparse and relatively expensive that wasting most of its value to produce hydrogen will *never* make sense. Hydrogen from nuclear perhaps. Provided that there's the huge surplus of cheap energy to do it. They said electricity would be too cheap to meter in the 60s didn't they ? Graham >> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message >> >> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > that > wasting most of its value to produce hydrogen will *never* make sense. Maybe it never will make commercial sense, but my point was that it does not require fossil fuels to power the electrolysis to make hydrogen. > Hydrogen from nuclear perhaps. Provided that there's the huge surplus of > cheap > energy to do it. They said electricity would be too cheap to meter in the > 60s > didn't they ? And then they went and sold off the generating capacity to private entities who have no interest in really cheap electricity - other than gaining market share. Hydrogen from nuclear would be great - hydrogen from nuclear fusion plants would be even better but is long way off. I was in the JET reactor at Culham some years back and that was one hell of an impressive piece of kit. Shame it took more power to get it working than it could ever produce though. I hope the ITER project goes well. Mind you - it all still misses the point (that i think you agree with) that however you get the hydrogen, it is more efficient just to use the electricity directly in the first place for all but a few applications. > Hydrogen from nuclear would be great The best thing about it: Uranium will last forever! No shortages of it, no wars over it! Never! Even in a thousand years! ;-) What's the percentage of nuclear energy (not only electricity!) currently produced globally? How many hundred reactors do you want to build each year to provide enough hydrogen for the cars, how long will the uranium last *then*, and where do you buy it? Jochen > Maybe it never will make commercial sense, but my point was that it does not > require fossil fuels to power the electrolysis to make hydrogen. I've added sci.energy.hydrogen. This has been beat to death for years. This is the real world:' http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php If you use wind to produce hydrogen then that wind won't displace coal. It has the same net effect as using coal. > That's simply not true. It is perfectly possible to power the electrolysis > with renewable energy sources such as tidal, solar or wind power. On a small scale. Large scale you're going to need nukes or hydro-electric if you aren't going to burn coal or natural gas. > > That's simply not true. It is perfectly possible to power the electrolysis > > with renewable energy sources such as tidal, solar or wind power. > > On a small scale. Large scale you're going to need nukes or > hydro-electric if you aren't going to burn coal or natural gas. Where do you plant to site more hydro facilities ? Let's just say if you want hydrogen you need to go for a crash programme to build 1000 nuclear stations. Graham > > H...@nospam.nix wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > That's simply not true. It is perfectly possible to power the electrolysis > with renewable energy sources such as tidal, solar or wind power Do you have any idea *how much* power we're talking about here? Let's say that your conversion process is 75% efficient (a number I just pulled out of my colon; I have no idea what the actual current practical maximum efficiency of electrolysis *is,* but I do know from basic chemistry that if it were 100% efficient that you would need to put in exactly as much power as you were planning on getting out, ASSuming you had a 100% efficient fuel cell) and that your ICE is 30% efficient (a generous estimate,) that means that not even counting transmission losses or transportation costs you're down to barely over 20% efficiency for the system as a whole - meaning for one equivalent of gallon of gasoline's energy that your car actually uses, you'd have input the equivalent of *FIVE* gallons of gasoline to the system to get to that point. Now multiply by the number of hydrogen-powered ICE cars that you anticipate being on the roads, and tell me if we have that kind of generating capacity, and if we have the infrastructure to deal with that kind of load. IMHO it'd be FAR better to concentrate our research on producing fuel cells that achieve high efficiencies, and even better if we can get them to run on fuels other than pure hydrogen (various alcohols would be nice; so would currently available fossil fuels) as then we can get vehicles that not only use their energy more efficiently, but can also take advantage of regenerative braking (being by necessity electric, neatly utilizing the developments already made with hybrid vehicles) for even greater efficiency than is possible with an ICE vehicle. Another good place to concentrate research would be in electrical energy storage, either through a chemically reversible fuel cell (ideal, but probably impractical) or batteries or ultracapacitors with higher than currently available energy densities - due to the fact stated above that a fuel cell vehicle would by necessity use an electric motor for its motive power, and therefore regen. braking is a logical next step. Unfortunately, nothing will replace the sheer wood-inducing factor of a well-tuned, nearly-overcammed V8 shaking and spitting at idle, or the glorious howl of the same engine sucking in great whacks of atmosphere at 6500 RPM, but I guess that is something we're going to have to get used to :( nate >> > H...@nospam.nix wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Do you have any idea *how much* power we're talking about here? That's immaterial. My point is that it is possible. You're going off at a tangent. Personally, I don't think mass production and distribution of hydrogen is the way forward either. > Let's > say that your conversion process is 75% efficient (a number I just [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Now multiply by the number of hydrogen-powered ICE cars that you > anticipate being on the roads, That would be zero. Why use an ICE when an electric motor would be far more suitable ? And why use hydrogen to feed a fuel cell if you can just store the electricity directly in a battery or similar ? > and tell me if we have that kind of > generating capacity, and if we have the infrastructure to deal with > that kind of load. It's a moot point. Why try to product hydrogen inefficiently to drive an already inefficient ICE ? > IMHO it'd be FAR better to concentrate our research on producing fuel > cells that achieve high efficiencies, and even better if we can get [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > electric motor for its motive power, and therefore regen. braking is a > logical next step. I fully agree with you. They key is in getting the energy density high enough and developing a fast refueling system that has the same time benefits as gasoline. > Unfortunately, nothing will replace the sheer wood-inducing factor of > a well-tuned, nearly-overcammed V8 shaking and spitting at idle, or > the glorious howl of the same engine sucking in great whacks of > atmosphere at 6500 RPM, but I guess that is something we're going to > have to get used to :( Sad but true. Electric motors just don't have that same emotion factor. > >> "Nate Nagel" <njna...@flycast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > That's immaterial. My point is that it is possible. You're going off at a > tangent. My point is that it is NOT possible. A quick back of the envelope calculation will confirm that it would require several times the electricity generating capacity that we already have, if not an order of magnitude. You really think that it is even POSSIBLE never mind practical to suddenly produce the same amount of electricity that we're already producing (or several times that,) solely from renewable sources? This is why efficiency is of paramount importance when we're talking about a paradigm shift away from fossil-fuel powered ICEs. > Personally, I don't think mass production and distribution of hydrogen is > the way forward either. If it's used as a *battery* and everyone keeps that in mind, it might be practical. Considering it a *fuel* will only lead you down dead ends. > > Let's > > say that your conversion process is 75% efficient (a number I just [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That would be zero. Why use an ICE when an electric motor would be far more > suitable ? Because that was the proposition that I was responding to. I agree, the idea is crap. > And why use hydrogen to feed a fuel cell if you can just store > the electricity directly in a battery or similar ? Because right now there's no clear winner in the energy density competition. A tank full of hydrogen produced by electrolysis might conceivably weigh less than a bank of batteries that stores the same amount of energy (I don't actually *know* this to be a fact, but the fact that research continues with hydrogen would lead me to believe that that is the case.) > > and tell me if we have that kind of > > generating capacity, and if we have the infrastructure to deal with > > that kind of load. > > It's a moot point. Why try to product hydrogen inefficiently to drive an > already inefficient ICE ? Exactly the point that I was trying to make. > > IMHO it'd be FAR better to concentrate our research on producing fuel > > cells that achieve high efficiencies, and even better if we can get [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > enough and developing a fast refueling system that has the same time > benefits as gasoline. which is probably why some people are concentrating on hydrogen, because it takes less time to fill a pressurized tank with hydrogen than it does to recharge a battery. I still like the idea of an alcohol-fueled fuel cell. There's no physical law that says that you can't grow something and then ferment it to produce alcohol and use less energy than the alcohol yields - that's the appeal, there. > > Unfortunately, nothing will replace the sheer wood-inducing factor of > > a well-tuned, nearly-overcammed V8 shaking and spitting at idle, or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sad but true. Electric motors just don't have that same emotion factor. I'm still looking forward to the perfectly flat torque curve though :) nate >> >> "Nate Nagel" <njna...@flycast.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > we're already producing (or several times that,) solely from renewable > sources? No, of course not - and most certainly not suddenly. And I think we're talking at crossed purposes here - and actually in agreement. My point was that it is perfectly possible to use renewable energy sources to power electrolysis, not that we could do it tomorrow (although we can do it today on a small scale) or that we could do it on a scale that would replace the gasoline economy, or that it was particularly efficient. > >> "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > on a small scale) or that we could do it on a scale that would replace the > gasoline economy, or that it was particularly efficient. Um, yes, that was pretty much my point. I tend to be pretty pragmatic, so when you have to qualify something that much my executive summary will be something like "it won't work." And dammit, stop being civil and reasonable. that's not how we do things here on Usenet. nate > >"adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > >> > "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > on a small scale) or that we could do it on a scale that would replace the > gasoline economy, or that it was particularly efficient. 6 million 2MW wind turbines @ 20% utilisation ( in the USA alone ) might do it. That's a mere 12000 trillion dollars or a thousand times the USA'a annual GDP. Surely I made some mistake ( I don't thinkI did ) but the numbers are so vast anyway ! Graham >.......... >> Unfortunately, nothing will replace the sheer wood-inducing factor of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Sad but true. Electric motors just don't have that same emotion factor. Like expecting it to quit at any moment. :-) Even without the need for renewable and sustainable and affordable fuels, the gasoline ICE should have been phased out long ago. To tell just how bad the ICE is, think of a big V8, turning at 600 RPM, that is 10 revolutions per second, and 80 pistons being pushed down every time the engine turns twice, or 40 power strokes per second. Chances are it will stall, 40 power strokes per second, 2400 per minute, will not keep the engine running. An electric motor doesn't use any fuel while standing, and will produce more torque at low RPM from a standing start. Don't confuse the horsepower issue with low RPM torque, horsepower increases with the RPM and speed. For city driving, torque is needed, not horsepower, and very little horsepower is needed for cruising at road speeds. To accelerate, the ICE must ask the transmission to downshift so the ICE can turn faster at a lower gear ratio, wasting fuel, while the electric motor can produce substantially more torque without downshifting. Joe Fischer >>.......... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and affordable fuels, the gasoline ICE should have been > phased out long ago. Why? As of right now, a hybrid gasoline (or diesel) is the most efficient way to move a car around. Pure electric doesn't match the overall efficiency because charging batteries is and powerplant efficiency combined can't match the peak efficiency of the ICE that you so casually and stupidly dismiss. Chemical-to-mechanical efficiency of ~40% in a portable package is NOT something to be sneezed at, its quite impressive, actually. > To tell just how bad the ICE is, think of a big V8, And smile... > turning at 600 RPM, that is 10 revolutions per second, > and 80 pistons being pushed down every time the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > second, 2400 per minute, will not keep the engine > running. What a load of crap!! The current Chrysler 5.7L ("new Hemi") v8 idles between 400-500 RPM to maximize efficiency, and it does so perfectly well without stalling. Just for grins, I've idled even '60s vintage v8s down to 300 RPM or so. That's not practical because the low idle speed would eventually cause camshaft damage in those cars, but with roller cams its perfectly reasonable to idle a v8 down around 300-500 RPM in a modern vehicle. The factory recommended idle speed on 60s and 70s v8s (except the high-performance ones with more radical cams) was around 600 rpm. Get a clue before you post garbage. >> Even without the need for renewable and sustainable >> and affordable fuels, the gasoline ICE should have been [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >~40% in a portable package is NOT something to be sneezed at, its quite >impressive, actually. The cost of electricity obviously is less per mile than gasoline here, hybrid or not (6 cents). If hybrids would have been phased in beginning in 1974, things would be a lot better now, but by the time the change is made, battery and ultracapacitor, fuel cells, and flow battery technology may have progressed to the point that the ICE is gone. >> To tell just how bad the ICE is, think of a big V8, > >And smile... After reading too many Road and Track rags, sure, but I am tired of the things, I don't need the ability to turn at 5500 RPM to accelerate. >> turning at 600 RPM, that is 10 revolutions per second, >> and 80 pistons being pushed down every time the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >between 400-500 RPM to maximize efficiency, and it does so perfectly >well without stalling. New from the factory, maybe, but check back after 50,000 miles. >Just for grins, I've idled even '60s vintage v8s >down to 300 RPM or so. Not dependable breaking friction, even with all the idle speed recovery vacuum solenoids and electronics, stalls are bad in traffic. >That's not practical because the low idle speed >would eventually cause camshaft damage in those cars, but with roller >cams its perfectly reasonable to idle a v8 down around 300-500 RPM in a >modern vehicle. The factory recommended idle speed on 60s and 70s v8s >(except the high-performance ones with more radical cams) was around 600 >rpm. Without A/C. >Get a clue before you post garbage. I was a dealer mechanic, and even new engines well broken in would best be set higher, the test was not the tachometer, it was the match of the transmission and the engine to not try to pull too hard waiting for a light in gear, yet not stalling. If all autos were hybrid, I would not be writing this, but they are not, and there doesn't even seem to be any real hurry to make the change. I just junked a 5.0L 1988 d'elegance, because the engine was such a dog, the carb was a monstrosity of confused engineering of vacuum hose and two electrical connections of 3 or 4 wires each. I want an electric car so bad, quite, no stinky fuel, less grease and grime, and they have to be easier to work on. Joe Fischer >>> Even without the need for renewable and sustainable >>>and affordable fuels, the gasoline ICE should have been [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and flow battery technology may have progressed to the > point that the ICE is gone. Battery technology and electronic controls have come a long way since 1974. Hybrids weren't practical then. >>> To tell just how bad the ICE is, think of a big V8, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but I am tired of the things, I don't need the ability to turn > at 5500 RPM to accelerate. It's called "reserve power" and it can save your butt in a sticky situation. This is not a downside to either ICE or electric though, an electric can move just as smartly, it just doesn't have the same range. >>>turning at 600 RPM, that is 10 revolutions per second, >>>and 80 pistons being pushed down every time the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > all the idle speed recovery vacuum solenoids and > electronics, stalls are bad in traffic. True, but there's nothing keeping even an old engine if well maintained from idling at factory spec. Usually if it won't, the remedy is a proper carb rebuild (including rebushing the throttle shafts, which a lot of "rebuilders" don't do. To get a proper rebuild, you generally have to send your carb away to a specialty carb shop, not have your local mechanic throw a jiffy kit in it or buy a "reman" from your FLAPS) and then everything is back to normal. >>That's not practical because the low idle speed >>would eventually cause camshaft damage in those cars, but with roller [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and the engine to not try to pull too hard waiting for a > light in gear, yet not stalling. There's a solution to that problem, it's called a "manual transmission." Even so, if an engine is pulling against the brakes at a stop light, the idle speed is set too high and needs to be lowered. If it can't be set that way, there is a problem with the engine management, or else the torque converter is too tight. > If all autos were hybrid, I would not be writing > this, but they are not, and there doesn't even seem [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fuel, less grease and grime, and they have to be > easier to work on. Sure, as long as you don't ever travel more than 100 miles away from home and don't mind letting the car recharge overnight after each medium-long trip. And that is perfectly practical for *some* people and I imagine that as the price of gasoline goes up, we may see more and more mainstream pure electric vehicles. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>> Even without the need for renewable and sustainable > >>>and affordable fuels, the gasoline ICE should have been [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > I imagine that as the price of gasoline goes up, we may see more and > more mainstream pure electric vehicles. Well, Nate, what your going to get in the future with transportation is something along the following: As fuel prices continue to rise, people are going to turn to the cheaper solutions. First, they are going to move to where they work. Second they are going to start shopping close to home. Third they are going to take vacations closer. Then when prices continue to rise they are going to start getting on mass transit. Then they are going to push the government into subsidizing mass transit more and more. Your going to see more and more rail built. More and more bus traffic. As for the problems of hydrogen and batteries and all that, it's immaterial. All of these problems are the result of designing transportation that has an -independent- and -mobile- fuel supply. Rail has no such limitations. You can design a cross-country "bullet train" that runs on electrical power, and goes 200Mph and the power is supplied by transmission lines that go 500 miles across country to the coal-fired power plant and are coupled to the train engine by contacts, just like a subway train today. Sure, that will make taking a trip across country take 4 times longer than a plane ride. But when fuel prices push the cost of the plane ride to 15 times the cost, everyone will get on the train except for some select few. The losers in all of this are going to be the rural people. What your going to end up seeing is all of the small towns that can't afford to put in mass transit will dry up and disappear. People are going to end up in mega-cities because it will be cheaper to live close together. The only folks left out in the rural areas will be the real commercial farmers. And they will be producing thier own liquid fuel, alcohol. Most long haul freight will end up on rail Most short-haul freight distribution will be biodiesel-powered. Electrical generation capacity will vastly increase. It will either be wind generation or nuclear. What people always overlook in these discussions is that since it's going to be impossible to get cheap energy out of nothing, society will change. 150 years ago, there were no personal autos. Society worked out quite well without them. When personal autos came in, society radically adapted and changed from the form that it WAS in, to the form that it IS in today. When the personal autos go the way of the dinosaur, society will change to a new form THEN that is different than what we have NOW. Someone from the 1800's, adapted to that society, couldn't possibly conceive of our society now. And if he could, he very likely would dislike it very much. Someone from today, adapted to today's society, cannot really conceive of society in the future. And if he could, he is most likely going to dislike it. Do I like thinking that one day, I might have to give up my cars and motorcycles and be dependent on mass-transit? f.ck no. But, my children's, children, who will be raised from infancy in a world without personal transportation, won't see their society as wrong. Most likely, they will read in the history books and be mystifyed about why people made such a big deal about cars. Today, we tie in personal transportation to this notion of personal freedom. Without personal transportation, we feel like we are in jail, trapped. But I ask you - does a 15 year old in the middle of New York City, who has no drivers license, but has a subway pass, have any less freedom than an adult in the same city, who has a drivers license and a car? Well, I've been in NYC and I can assure you, he doesen't. He can go anywhere that anyone would want to go in a car, on rail and on his feet. It just takes a little longer. Ted > Sure, that will make taking a trip across country take 4 times longer > than a plane ride. Make that 'twice as long': Paris - London by train is 2:30h, by air it's 1:15h, for example But: Train is city centre to city centre, so you have to add the time to get from Paris to Charles de Gaulle and from Heathrow to London. min. 1 hour each, in rush hour traffic? Makes the train twice as fast, and you can arrive at the station 2 minutes before the train leaves. Try that with a plane <bg> > Do I like thinking that one day, I might have to give up my cars and > motorcycles and be dependent on mass-transit? f.ck no. It doesn't hurt, you know? For the very rare occasions where I do need a car: There are plenty of firms around which have so many of them that they even rent them out: Hertz, Sixt, Alamo... You name them. ...and you'll never have to worry about maintenance, repairs; even cleaning your car is a thing of the past. I've given up owning a car 15 years ago: It feels strange at first but I wouldn't want one now even if you gave it to me! > mystifyed about why people made such a big deal about cars. That's what I am indeed: Mystified! What's all the fuss about? > He can go anywhere that anyone would want to go in a car, on > rail and on his feet. It just takes a little longer. Are you sure about that "takes a little longer" bit? ;-) Jochen > As fuel prices continue to rise, people are going to turn to the cheaper > solutions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vacations > closer. IOW, quality of life will go to hell and people will be forced back to either living in stinking high-rise cities ala 1900 New York, or back to the farms. I'll take the farm, thankyouverymuch! The problem isn't energy, its population. >150 years ago, there were no personal autos. Of course there were, they either had four legs or had something with four legs in front. Why do you think the highway in front of my house was built before 1800? Joe Fischer > If hybrids would have been phased in beginning > in 1974, things would be a lot better now, but by the time > the change is made, battery and ultracapacitor, fuel cells, > and flow battery technology may have progressed to the > point that the ICE is gone. As a working EE, I would put my money on the ICE being around for another 100 years. Not necessarily in standalone shaft-to-the-wheels form as it has been, but it'll be around. You go ahead and bet on mythical technology if you want, but I'll bet on those technologies serving as aids to an ICE-core powerplant. >>> To tell just how bad the ICE is, think of a big V8, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but I am tired of the things, I don't need the ability to turn > at 5500 RPM to accelerate. Exactly why a big V8 makes me smile. They accelerate like a bat out of hell at low RPM. Its all the buzzing little Honda 4-poopers that have to rev to 8000 to get moving. >>> Chances are it will stall, 40 power strokes per >>>second, 2400 per minute, will not keep the engine [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > New from the factory, maybe, but check back > after 50,000 miles. My friend, there are THOUSANDS of 5.7s out there with well over 50k on the clock. Still idling at 400-500. > Not dependable breaking friction, even with > all the idle speed recovery vacuum solenoids and > electronics, stalls are bad in traffic. I cannot remember the last time I had a car "stall in traffic." Or stall ANYWHERE for that matter, unless I was a goob and dumped the clutch too quickly. Stalling cars are a thing of the past. And since when do cars have "idle speed recovery vacuum solenoids?!?" About 1975??? > I want an electric car so bad, quite, no stinky > fuel, less grease and grime, and they have to be > easier to work on. Yeah, just a few hundred pounds of heavy metals and corrosive electrolytes. Oh, and increase power grid capacity by 200% to charge everyones electric car. Oh, and all the safeties that have to be built into large battery packs to prevent cell reversals and other "rapid disassembly with report and heat" events in NORMAL operations, let alone what happens in a collision. No big deal at all. :-/ >As a working EE, I would put my money on the ICE being around for >another 100 years. Not necessarily in standalone shaft-to-the-wheels >form as it has been, but it'll be around. You go ahead and bet on >mythical technology if you want, but I'll bet on those technologies >serving as aids to an ICE-core powerplant. It's so damn inelegant, but so much engineering effort has been put into making it as good as an inelegant design can be, that I rather agree with you. It's a shame, though. The whole idea of slapping big pieces of metal back and forth in a reciprocating arrangement is just so silly, though. But there are so many of them, they are everywhere, they are cheap to make and the efficiency is amazingly good considering what they are. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > >As a working EE, I would put my money on the ICE being around for > >another 100 years. Not necessarily in standalone shaft-to-the-wheels [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cheap to make and the efficiency is amazingly good considering what they > are. Personally, as a working civil engineer, I would expect that the PHEVs will become popular, they get all the advantages of the pure EVs AND all the advantages of the ICE. I would also be kind of surprised if something similar to a combined cycle power plant isn't scaled down for them, possibly the "6 stroke" engine might be viable for phevs. BMW has a 2 stage steam heat recovery system in the works. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/automotivetech/163cf51b6fd89010vgnvcm1000004eecbccd rcrd.html Of course all the land use and lifestyle changes that were discussed here are pretty much a given, the single family house is a frontier phenomenon, and has already been abandoned in eurasia. that's the primary reason that european percapita energy consumption is less than that in the us, australia and canada. > Of course all the land use and lifestyle changes that were > discussed here are pretty much a given, the single family house is a > frontier phenomenon, and has already been abandoned in eurasia. > that's the primary reason that european percapita energy consumption > is less than that in the us, australia and canada. You think that single houses are rare in Europe ? Whatever next ! Graham On Feb 16, 12:24 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Of course all the land use and lifestyle changes that were > > discussed here are pretty much a given, the single family house is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You think that single houses are rare in Europe ? > Whatever next ! rare, no. however, in the us, single family homes represent 75% of the total dwelling units vs 50% in europe, the average home is 2 rooms larger and has an average of 1 fewer person living there. Additionally, a higher percentage of the SFHs in europe are attached townhouse type units than here, and of the single family detatched units, a VASTLY higher percentage sit on lots that are less than half the size compared to the high energy countries (US, Canada, Australia). 5 minutes with google earth is more than enough to see the differences between european and us land uses. Europe has compact dense cities, america, australia and canada have large sprawled cities. that has more to do with property values than anything else. >You think that single houses are rare in Europe ? > >Whatever next ! >Graham Sharing big houses seems like a good idea when the going gets rough, but the partners need to be normal trustworthy people. :-) In Shaker Heights, Ohio there are thousands of big homes, rather mansions, 20 rooms or more, all built by millionaires in the first half of the 20th century or earlier, most brick, covered with ivy, and a lot of them were converted to apartments beginning in the 1960s. What else to do when the cost of space heating goes way up? Joe Fischer > Of course all the land use and lifestyle changes that were > discussed here are pretty much a given, the single family house is a > frontier phenomenon, and has already been abandoned in eurasia. But I would argue that the small community of single-family dwellings model is how humans are WIRED to live. Urban hives are an aberration, as the crime rate proves. One plague or natural disaster will wipe a big city out. Putting all your eggs in one basket is an evolutionary dead-end. > > Of course all the land use and lifestyle changes that were > > discussed here are pretty much a given, the single family house is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the crime rate proves. One plague or natural disaster will wipe a big > city out. Putting all your eggs in one basket is an evolutionary dead-end. there is more than one city :) I can't really debate that cities run somewhat counter to how humans are wired to best enjoy life, having tried both lifestyles. however, the normal response for people in the city is to make a small group of close friends. that seems to work pretty well. High crime rates are a separate issue, mostly relating to cultural issues in the us and a few other countries. MANY countries have highly urbanized living conditions and remarkably low crime rates. Again, it's a bit of a frontier thing, americans are kind of a rebel culture prone to glorifying crime. > > Of course all the land use and lifestyle changes that were > > discussed here are pretty much a given, the single family house is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the crime rate proves. One plague or natural disaster will wipe a big > city out. Putting all your eggs in one basket is an evolutionary dead-end. Humans are supposedly 'wired' to co-exist best in groups of 7-12 and villages of 60-100. Graham >>As a working EE, I would put my money on the ICE being around for >>another 100 years. Not necessarily in standalone shaft-to-the-wheels [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of metal back and forth in a reciprocating arrangement is just so silly, > though. Oh, some day our level of technology may be such that some guy (though he may not quite be human) will remark that slamming hydrogen atoms together to get energy and helium is "inelegant." But the stars will continue burn by fusion despite its "inelegance." :-) > But there are so many of them, they are everywhere, they are > cheap to make and the efficiency is amazingly good considering what they > are. And its not for lack of TRYING to replace reciprocating engines. The wankel was a bust for all practical purposes. The gas turbine doesn't scale down to automobile sizes well. >> If hybrids would have been phased in beginning >> in 1974, things would be a lot better now, but by the time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >As a working EE, I would put my money on the ICE being around for >another 100 years. If not, the oil companies will need to make some major decisions. >Not necessarily in standalone shaft-to-the-wheels >form as it has been, but it'll be around. You go ahead and bet on >mythical technology if you want, but I'll bet on those technologies >serving as aids to an ICE-core powerplant. The big change will happen in two or three years, but because of the large number of existing vehicles, and the relatively small percentage of people who have the< |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message