The Future of Cars

[serialk11r]

Lithium Iron Phosphate is not really promising for cars IMO...BYD in China had a full electric car with them at Detroit Auto Show and it weighed something ridiculous like 1 full ton more than the gas counterpart, and still had crap range.

As I said, there is research being done with nanoscale processes to increase the energy density. Theoretically we should be able to store several times more power than batteries currently hold in the same mass, but there are huge cost barriers. Not to mention it doesn't seem like the degradation issue has been resolved even with the experimental batteries. Also the proposed processes for producing these newer batteries are very new and unproven.

[WingsofWar]

Arc reactor from iron man ..powering your car...

/thread

[aliphian]

UltraBattery.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

I'm fairly certain that we would be able to do night time charging here since demand drops off dramatically after certain hours. A large portion of the power generation capacity is to deliver peak power. We have similar programs as you do in NZ in some of our states.

In some places they have demand meters installed and the price per KWh can really jump during peak power demand.

Lithium Phosphate batteries are here now and are getting cheaper. I wouldn't count on an experimental battery mix evening being produced until 10 years after they prove it can work in the labs.

Slightly off-topic, but talking to my ex in Japan said that a lot of the automotive industry is moving their 'weekend' to Wed and Thu, for this reason. In this case it's obviously not to save money, but to balance the load out.

[Exage]

Of interest...

http://wot.motortrend.com/general-mo...ent-87089.html

10min fast charge for 40 mile range.

Lithium-Titanate battery packs:

High charge levels and elevated temperatures (whether from charging or ambient air) hasten capacity loss. Charging heat is caused by the carbon anode (typically replaced with lithium titanate which drastically reduces damage from charging, including expansion and other factors).

Durability (20 years, 9,000 cycles).
Safety: Operating Temperature (-50–70 °C (-58–158 °F)).
[wikipedia]

[82mm 4g63]

Ethanol is an inefficient fuel. As numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste.

Getting our fuel from corn is rather silly to me. We're going to raise plants using petroleum-based fertilizers, displace food crops, use terribly energy inefficient processes to convert it into a usable fuel (at a net loss) and the result is still putting poison into the air.

On the other hand, ethanol from sugar cane delivered 1:8 energy conversion, which met the national mandate. Unfortunately for us, sugar cane isn't a viable crop in the climate of our nation's heartland.

Cellulosic Ethanol is a great contender, much, much better than any fossil fuel and it does have many benefits, but hydrogen fuel is the future fuel I want to see.

The major road blocks for hydrogen fuel are finding a cost effective way to produce, transport, and store it in a car as well as building a hydrogen infrastructure comparable to a gas station on every corner, which would cost billions and require the unprecedented cooperation of automakers, energy companies, and the government.

[serialk11r]

Uhhh fuel economy measured in miles per gallon drops because ethanol has lower specific energy, but as you said, some studies show it yields small positive net energy in production, some say slightly less. That means the actual fuel economy measured in amount of energy put into making ethanol is about the same. Ethanol has a few other benefits, such as allowing high compression ratios and cleaner emissions. But yes the net benefit, if any, is very small. The main point is that it ends up using less total petroleum, and for whatever reason reducing petroleum usage is more important than reducing usage of other resources.

[iff2mastamatt]

Originally Posted by Exage

Of interest...

http://wot.motortrend.com/general-mo...ent-87089.html

10min fast charge for 40 mile range.

Lithium-Titanate battery packs:

...

Durability (20 years, 9,000 cycles).

Safety: Operating Temperature (-50–70 °C (-58–158 °F)).
[wikipedia]

There isn't really enough lithium on earth to power something as large as a car. It's actually a rarer resourse than petroleum.

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Uhhh fuel economy measured in miles per gallon drops because ethanol has lower specific energy, but as you said, some studies show it yields small positive net energy in production, some say slightly less. That means the actual fuel economy measured in amount of energy put into making ethanol is about the same. Ethanol has a few other benefits, such as allowing high compression ratios and cleaner emissions. But yes the net benefit, if any, is very small. The main point is that it ends up using less total petroleum, and for whatever reason reducing petroleum usage is more important than reducing usage of other resources.

I think we can all agree that no matter which path we take we are all at least a decade a way (I'd guess closer to 20 years) from seeing a significant shift away from gasoline. With that kind of time frame I think even Cellulosic Ethanol is an unacceptable next step. Any emission that has a negative affect on the environment is unacceptable, hydrogen is the only viable alternative that produces water as a byproduct. However, the biggest issue with hydrogen isn't with its usage, but with its production, transportation, and storage as well as making it easily accessible to consumers.

Time for Manhattan Project 2: Fixing What We Broke. IMO

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by 82mm 4g63

I think we can all agree that no matter which path we take we are all at least a decade a way (I'd guess closer to 20 years) from seeing a significant shift away from gasoline. With that kind of time frame I think even Cellulosic Ethanol is an unacceptable next step. Any emission that has a negative affect on the environment is unacceptable, hydrogen is the only viable alternative that produces water as a byproduct. However, the biggest issue with hydrogen isn't with its usage, but with its production, transportation, and storage as well as making it easily accessible to consumers.

Time for Manhattan Project 2: Fixing What We Broke. IMO

I think cellulostic ethanol is a win, for biofuel. It'll be close to carbon neutral, since any emissions of CO2 get used by the plants that we get it from. Plus is can integrate more easily with the existing infrastructure. Same goes with biodiesel. Plus no need for complex high pressure, cryo-type fuel storage.

But... I'm biased, since ethanol will allow for some kick-ass performance cars using conventional tech.

[Exage]

Originally Posted by iff2mastamatt

There isn't really enough lithium on earth to power something as large as a car. It's actually a rarer resourse than petroleum.

"Worldwide reserves of lithium are estimated to be 23 million tonnes. Using the battery efficiency figure of 400 g of lithium per kWh, this gives a total maximum lithium battery capacity of 52 billion kWh which, assuming it is used exclusively for car batteries, is enough for approximately 2 billion cars with a 24 kWh battery (like a Nissan Leaf)."

"At 20 mg lithium per kg of Earth's crust, lithium is the 25th most abundant element. Nickel and lead have about the same abundance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium

The quickest relevant info I could find on the element...

[serialk11r]

Ethanol is the cheapest alternative since it can be stored the same way, pretty close energy density, high performance, clean burning. you still have some hydrocarbons from lubrication and incomplete combustion produces some aldehydes and stuff, but it's not nearly as bad as gasoline. Easy way to think about it: gasoline burnt in air, without premixing, creates tons of soot, while ethanol burns very well and only produces water and CO2.

Personally, I think CO2 emissions is overemphasized. The main threat is the imminent scarcity of oil, which is incredibly useful and important for non-transportation uses. Renewable energy is good in that it saves the scarce resources for applications where they are more difficult to replace.

@Exage I believe Nickel is getting depleted, or maybe that was tin. At any rate nickel is super expensive, so...

[82mm 4g63]

Originally Posted by Dimman

I think cellulostic ethanol is a win, for biofuel. It'll be close to carbon neutral, since any emissions of CO2 get used by the plants that we get it from. Plus is can integrate more easily with the existing infrastructure. Same goes with biodiesel. Plus no need for complex high pressure, cryo-type fuel storage.

But... I'm biased, since ethanol will allow for some kick-ass performance cars using conventional tech.

Exactly the same for me, I WANT cellulosic ethanol to be our next step from a purely performance stand point. However, I just think if we're going to invest 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars into an emissions solution why not go right to our best solution?

I won't shead any tears of sadness if we end up with cell. ethanol, tears of joy maybe.

[phenoyz]

Electric for sure