New material could help stretch a gallon of gas

New material could help stretch a gallon of gas

www.enn.com

A new, highly efficient material that converts heat into electricity may one day help cars get the most out of a gallon of gas...Only about 25 percent of the energy produced by a typical gasoline engine is used to move the vehicle or run accessories like the radio or windshield wipers, they said. Much of the rest escapes through the exhaust pipe...Researchers think they can recycle some of that lost energy with a new thermoelectric material that is twice as effective as current materials.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow the desperqation to keep the oil industry alive is amazing to me. I know that we can not just abandone oil straight away but this just seems like desperation.

First off that we only use 25% of the energy in our gas and that this new technology can only improve it by 10% seems weak. 10% would raise the efficiency to what 27.5 %, who cares....

As much energy as we put into trying to make oil work could really lead us to new and better alternatives if only we have the foresight and progressive attitude necessary to make such changes.

www.enn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow, talk about short sighted. This would NOT work on regular gasoline engines, this would have to be installed on the exhaust manifold of a Hybrid. Take a plug in hybrid that gets 100 MPG. 10% increase means 110 MPG. Add in thin film solar panels to the roof to get an additional boost by taking Air Conditioning out of the MPG equation and you could boost MPG even more(by as much as 15% if Mythbusters is to be believed). Of course when we get EV technology perfected, this Heat-electron conversion technology will be useless for cars, but not for generators which operate at the right temperature range. After we take care of all pollution sources the last one we have to worry about is waste heat. Another application this technology could have is making high temperature Solar Thermal power stations practical(more than 1100 C rather than 600 C).

Turning waste heat to electricity is a bright green idea.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by sardion2000]

I am still waiting on an answer as to what exactly we are supposed to be switching to. Every single energy source (including oil) has inherent drawbacks. Thus far, no sound alternative energy source for transportation has been found.

Ethanol has been tried, but was tried based on corn ethanol, and that has effectively driven food prices higher while giving us no benefit in oil usage. Sure, sugar cane or sawgrass may be an option, but so far I haven't seen any such production in the USA.

Biodiesel as well has been touted, but it is slowly becoming obsolete as a major fuel alternative and more a fuel additive. There are costs involved with large-scale production/use of high-blend biodiesel that apparently weren't considered when it was introduced. It may still turn out to be a help, but even this does not stop use of oil, it only stretches it.

Electric and hybrid cars are just now coming into production, and they have their own problems. The biggest ones are cost and battery life. Electric only are also plagued by the fact that there is no infrastructure set up to recharge them in comparison with a gas station on every corner of the USA. Who will be the first to try and navigate NY to LA with a slight chance of finding somewhere to plug in your electric car? It won't be me; if you're smart, it won't be you.

Hydrogen sounds like a great idea, but where is it? Where can I buy a hydrogen car? And where can I fill it up with more hydrogen when the tank is empty?

It can take years for a new invention to make it to market, and even then it can be more years before it is widely used by the population. Add the infrastructure realities into the equation and we're looking at a very long time before we can hope to have nice hydrogen or electric vehicles ruling the highways.

In the meantime, I think it is a bit presumptive to dismiss anything that will increase our efficiency and remain within the present infrastructure bounds. 10% of an already dismal 25% may be small, but every little bit helps while we wait for the great revolution in transportation. I also am wondering if this couldn't be used to further solid-state heating and cooling research? that would be a major improvement.

TheRedneck

Here is what we can switch too

reply to post by sardion2000


of course it would only work on hybrids. gas engines don't burn electricity. i don't think increasing the efficiency of the power plants is shortsighted, personally. fuel burning engines will be around for a long time.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I am still waiting on an answer as to what exactly we are supposed to be switching to. Every single energy source (including oil) has inherent drawbacks. Thus far, no sound alternative energy source for transportation has been found.

This is a false assumption. There will be no one alternative to replace Oil. We're burning up buried sunshine that can never be replaced. We are gonna have to tighten our belts, change our lifestyles, completely rethink how we build cities and where we get our food from. We are going to reach a point where we are going to have to make do with less then we had before until we figure out fusion but that is like 50 years away and for some reason I don't think we have that kind of time...

Ethanol has been tried, but was tried based on corn ethanol, and that has effectively driven food prices higher while giving us no benefit in oil usage. Sure, sugar cane or sawgrass may be an option, but so far I haven't seen any such production in the USA.

Ethanol is a bad idea unless it's from agricultural waste and only then as a method to make a gallon of diesel go farther. Not a replacement, just a band aid but an important one if we ever make cellulose to fuel work efficiently. Algae is another candidate and has the added advantage of being an efficient pollution scrubber as well.

Biodiesel as well has been touted, but it is slowly becoming obsolete as a major fuel alternative and more a fuel additive. There are costs involved with large-scale production/use of high-blend biodiesel that apparently weren't considered when it was introduced. It may still turn out to be a help, but even this does not stop use of oil, it only stretches it.

Biodiesel and Ethanol are in the same category IMO. It'll only be used in blends and will only make what we have now last a bit longer.

Electric and hybrid cars are just now coming into production, and they have their own problems. The biggest ones are cost and battery life. Electric only are also plagued by the fact that there is no infrastructure set up to recharge them in comparison with a gas station on every corner of the USA. Who will be the first to try and navigate NY to LA with a slight chance of finding somewhere to plug in your electric car? It won't be me; if you're smart, it won't be you.

Cost will be brought down with mass production. By 2020 you won't be able to buy a non-hybrid, it's just where the technology is going. By 2015 BMW will not sell Gasoline/Diesel only cars AT ALL. Battery life is not an issue with Hybrids, Lead Acid batteries last as long as the car does. Li-Ion are the challenge and they are the only batteries available that make pure EV's practical. The problem with this is longevity and it degrades regardless of use(they only last 3 years and by then you only get 1/3 total capacity or something like that). We gotta find an alternative to Lithium. Silver-Zinc batteries look very promising.

EV's are the future though it won't happen at once. Switching over to an EV drive economy will be cheaper than switching over to a H2 economy by a hundred billion dollars. You don't have to store electricity in pressurized tanks for one and setting up additional outlets on the street that are metered is trivially easy if tediously expensive due to the numbers you would need, it's still cheaper then Hydrogen... I can definitely see these being added to parking meters and it wouldn't cost nearly as much as a hydrogen economy and would be inherently more efficient especially if we start to get serious about upgrading the grid to superconducting wires(yes expensive but we'll be leapfrogging the world if we start now, wouldn't that be nice for a change, instead of having China leapfrog us we'll be leapfrogging them ).

Hydrogen sounds like a great idea, but where is it? Where can I buy a hydrogen car? And where can I fill it up with more hydrogen when the tank is empty?

Hydrogen is a horrible idea. EV's are more efficient by a factor of 3 when you take into consideration the life cycle of the energy that powers each vehicle.

It can take years for a new invention to make it to market, and even then it can be more years before it is widely used by the population. Add the infrastructure realities into the equation and we're looking at a very long time before we can hope to have nice hydrogen or electric vehicles ruling the highways.

We can retool in 5 years if we have to. We've done it before during war time when our very way of life was at stake, just like it is now.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by sardion2000]

reply to post by sardion2000

This is a false assumption. There will be no one alternative to replace Oil.

If that is true, then we're going to have a little problem with mass production. Just like gasoline and diesel replaced steam, whichever energy solution is more profitable and convenient for the masses will be the one we go to. I have no doubt that there will always be 'fringe' technologies, like geothermal or solar now, but there will have to be one particular type of energy used for each aspect of energy use. If EVs become the norm, you will see gasoline become an obsolete collectors item, and a lack of gasoline stations just like there is now a lack of electrical stations.

We're burning up buried sunshine that can never be replaced.

Nice metaphor, but not exactly accurate. We are burning hydrocarbons, which are composed of carbon (one of the most abundant elements on the planet Earth) and hydrogen (the single most abundant element both on Earth and in the Universe). Whether or not these oil fields are the remains of dead dinos is a hotly debated subject. I say simply, what do you get when you 'burn' carbon in an atmosphere of hydrogen rather than oxygen? Try hydrocarbons - oil. The interior of the Earth is hot enough and has enough pressure to do just that.

We are gonna have to tighten our belts, change our lifestyles, completely rethink how we build cities and where we get our food from.

What, we're going to have to move cities? And exactly where except from agriculture do you think we can get our food from?

Sorry, this part sounds sorta like propaganda to me.

We are going to reach a point where we are going to have to make do with less then we had before until we figure out fusion but that is like 50 years away and for some reason I don't think we have that kind of time...

Fusion cannot even take a 50-year timetable at this point. It would be wonderful if it could, as it would supply plenty of electricity with no pollution or oil. It may work tomorrow, or never, probably somewhere in between.

In the meantime, there is no shortage of oil. None. Nada. Zip. No gas rationing, no long lines at the pumps. The only foreseeable problem with hydrocarbons is that we do not have enough refineries (which can be built) and we have a very poor, unregulated distribution system (which can be fixed). While I am definitely in favor of more research and testing on alternate energy sources, it has nothing to do with an illusionary oil shortage. I simply think we can do better.

Ethanol is a bad idea unless it's from agricultural waste and only then as a method to make a gallon of diesel go farther. Not a replacement, just a band aid but an important one if we ever make cellulose to fuel work efficiently. Algae is another candidate and has the added advantage of being an efficient pollution scrubber as well.

I agree with you on the biodiesel/ethanol situation, except for one thing: exactly what is 'agricultural waste'? The last time I looked around, nature wasted nothing; what wasn't used otherwise became fertilizer for the next crop.

Biodiesel and Ethanol are in the same category IMO. It'll only be used in blends and will only make what we have now last a bit longer.

Agreed.

Cost will be brought down with mass production.

Then we have to forget about competing technologies getting their slice of the pie. Mass production will only work if there is a steady demand, and the higher that demand, the more efficiently the cars can be built.

By 2020 you won't be able to buy a non-hybrid, it's just where the technology is going. By 2015 BMW will not sell Gasoline/Diesel only cars AT ALL.

So far, that is an assumption and a corporate goal. While it may occur, it is not set in stone. The technological advancements and the public demand will determine the final outcome there.

Battery life is not an issue with Hybrids, Lead Acid batteries last as long as the car does.

Eu contraire! Since when do lead-acid batteries last as long as a car? The maximum lifetime of the average car battery is about 5 years. Now if the average hybrid is only going to last 5 years, as opposed to 21 and counting like my old gasoline-powered pickup, that is going to make selling these things to the general public a hard thing to accomplish.

Actually, according to present reports, expect to replace your battery pack every 4-5 years at a cost of a couple thousand dollars. That makes the operating cost for the average person more than that of a small gasoline-powered economy car.

Li-Ion are the challenge and they are the only batteries available that make pure EV's practical. The problem with this is longevity and it degrades regardless of use(they only last 3 years and by then you only get 1/3 total capacity or something like that). We gotta find an alternative to Lithium. Silver-Zinc batteries look very promising.

Really not familiar with silver-zinc, but I will look into it. Battery life and capacity is the single biggest problem with EVs right now, and I really do hope we can overcome it.

EV's are the future though it won't happen at once. Switching over to an EV drive economy will be cheaper than switching over to a H2 economy by a hundred billion dollars. You don't have to store electricity in pressurized tanks for one and setting up additional outlets on the street that are metered is trivially easy if tediously expensive due to the numbers you would need, it's still cheaper then Hydrogen...

Absolutely the infrastructure change will be easier for EVs. However, you will have competing companies vying for different positions for their outlets. I am assuming you'd have to pay by debit/credit card as well, no cash. Or perhaps there would be a scheme where you could get billed monthly from the company you chose to be your provider. Now what happens if that company doesn't have any outlets where you need to park?

What about leaving your car sitting at work all day? Perhaps businesses could offer free hookups to employees as a bonus. There are an infinite number of ways this could be achieved, but the end result will depend on business investment and consumer demand. this system does not always provide what we think is the best solution, but it provides the solutions that are practical for everyone involved.

I can definitely see these being added to parking meters and it wouldn't cost nearly as much as a hydrogen economy and would be inherently more efficient especially if we start to get serious about upgrading the grid to superconducting wires(yes expensive but we'll be leapfrogging the world if we start now, wouldn't that be nice for a change, instead of having China leapfrog us we'll be leapfrogging them ).

You got a link to these new superconducting wires? I'd like to read more about them; I thought all the known superconducting materials had a fairly low critical temperature.

Hydrogen is a horrible idea. EV's are more efficient by a factor of 3 when you take into consideration the life cycle of the energy that powers each vehicle.

EVs have a limited range, and take time to recharge after that range. I think some sort of chemical fuel would be inherently more practical if you were driving around on vacation, for instance.

We can retool in 5 years if we have to. We've done it before during war time when our very way of life was at stake, just like it is now.

Apparently, we don't have to then. I know of no one putting electric outlets in parking meters.

'We can' is not necessarily 'we will'. It will not be the governments that do this; it will be business, and business economics must be taken into consideration. That is my main point.

TheRedneck


[edit on 26-7-2008 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
If that is true, then we're going to have a little problem with mass production. Just like gasoline and diesel replaced steam, whichever energy solution is more profitable and convenient for the masses will be the one we go to.

Cookie cutter economies are a thing of the past. Local municipalities and provinces/states will have to adapt to local realities. Brazil for instance is one of the few countries that can use Bio-fuels to make it completely independent from oil(yes yes I know Rainforrest destruction is bad but this is just an example) so they are adapting by making that fuel source mainstream locally. Britian will most likely rely on Nuclear/Wave/Wind mix. Some parts of the world will be completely reliant on Ethanol others will be reliant on Electricity and others still will be reliant on H2.

What, we're going to have to move cities? And exactly where except from agriculture do you think we can get our food from?

Where did I say we have to move cities? We just need to rethink development to reduce the need for cars. Redevelopment happens on timescales of decades so we have enough time to adapt.

Sorry, this part sounds sorta like propaganda to me.

Really? So you disagree that we've hit Worldwide Peak oil in 2006? It was confirmed by 2007 refining capacity numbers and the decline should be even steeper this year.

Fusion cannot even take a 50-year timetable at this point. It would be wonderful if it could, as it would supply plenty of electricity with no pollution or oil. It may work tomorrow, or never, probably somewhere in between.

50 years was just an arbitrary throwaway number. 50 years is as good as never in my opinion. I really want Bussards fusion process to work though....

In the meantime, there is no shortage of oil. None. Nada. Zip. No gas rationing, no long lines at the pumps. The only foreseeable problem with hydrocarbons is that we do not have enough refineries (which can be built) and we have a very poor, unregulated distribution system (which can be fixed). While I am definitely in favor of more research and testing on alternate energy sources, it has nothing to do with an illusionary oil shortage. I simply think we can do better.

See above. Peak oil has already hit and it's going to get progressively worse. Not doomsaying here just saying we're gonna have to make adjustments. And no the speculators are not driving up the price of oil, they are just scapegoats and any regulation of the Oil Speculation market will just drive prices up as all regulation does. Regulating C02 emissions would do the same thing btw. Just drive up the price of being green. God damn I hate red tape....

I agree with you on the biodiesel/ethanol situation, except for one thing: exactly what is 'agricultural waste'? The last time I looked around, nature wasted nothing; what wasn't used otherwise became fertilizer for the next crop.

Not all agricultural "waste" is used. A lot of it is just dumped because they generate way too much of the stuff. Cellulose is one such waste product that we generate in huge quantities and can be used for things from Plastic to Fuel though not very efficiently right now.

Then we have to forget about competing technologies getting their slice of the pie. Mass production will only work if there is a steady demand, and the higher that demand, the more efficiently the cars can be built.

The demand is there but the price hasn't reached a point where people are willing to go to them. The argument goes like this. I won't build it because there is no market, but there won't be a market unless I start building and selling it.

So far, that is an assumption and a corporate goal. While it may occur, it is not set in stone. The technological advancements and the public demand will determine the final outcome there.

It won't change, They are seeing just how baddly the American companies are being beat by Asian imports and they see the winds changing direction.

Eu contraire! Since when do lead-acid batteries last as long as a car? The maximum lifetime of the average car battery is about 5 years. Now if the average hybrid is only going to last 5 years, as opposed to 21 and counting like my old gasoline-powered pickup, that is going to make selling these things to the general public a hard thing to accomplish.

Eu contraire ineed Average life expectancy of cars on the road are around 5 years. The batteries in lead acids last 10 years(got a Grid Tied PV system with Gel Lead Acids and they are guaranteed for 80% capacity for 10 years)

Actually, according to present reports, expect to replace your battery pack every 4-5 years at a cost of a couple thousand dollars. That makes the operating cost for the average person more than that of a small gasoline-powered economy car.

Links please. I've read the exact opposite from New York Taxi cab drivers(i'll look for the link). They've had 5 years experience with them.

Really not familiar with silver-zinc, but I will look into it. Battery life and capacity is the single biggest problem with EVs right now, and I really do hope we can overcome it.

Silver-Zinc batteries have been around a very long time, some Nanoscientists have manged to increase their capacity to roughly the same as a li-ion battery in half the form factor.

Absolutely the infrastructure change will be easier for EVs. However, you will have competing companies vying for different positions for their outlets. I am assuming you'd have to pay by debit/credit card as well, no cash. Or perhaps there would be a scheme where you could get billed monthly from the company you chose to be your provider. Now what happens if that company doesn't have any outlets where you need to park?

RFID is the answer(never thought I'd ever say that LOL!)

What about leaving your car sitting at work all day? Perhaps businesses could offer free hookups to employees as a bonus. There are an infinite number of ways this could be achieved, but the end result will depend on business investment and consumer demand. this system does not always provide what we think is the best solution, but it provides the solutions that are practical for everyone involved.

It will become a hiring perk.

You got a link to these new superconducting wires? I'd like to read more about them; I thought all the known superconducting materials had a fairly low critical temperature.

Superconducting Power Grid Launches In New York

A comment from the Slashdot thread.

So it costs some significant amount of power to cool them down to their working temperature, but once there, the super conductors keep their temperature almost for free, you only have to make up for what is lost because of the insulation.

Read that whole thread, it's very intriguing.

EVs have a limited range, and take time to recharge after that range. I think some sort of chemical fuel would be inherently more practical if you were driving around on vacation, for instance.

The Tesla EV has a range of around 220 miles on a single charge. Unfortunately they use Li-Ion. One way we can get around the cost of the batteries is to not sell them to the owners but lease them along with the car.

Now what we are gonna power these EV's with?

As for Gasoline stations, I forsee that they will turn into cyrogenically cooled quick charge stations. Ok maybe not, but I do see a future for those stations. Make EV's modular so you can slide the battery packs and on the fly and change them at a service station. Yeah they are heavy so you could adapt some robotics to help you. Just swap out the dead batteries and put fresh ones in. It would be faster than filling up your car with gas.

reply to post by sardion2000

Cookie cutter economies are a thing of the past. Local municipalities and provinces/states will have to adapt to local realities. Brazil for instance is one of the few countries that can use Bio-fuels to make it completely independent from oil(yes yes I know Rainforrest destruction is bad but this is just an example) so they are adapting by making that fuel source mainstream locally. Britian will most likely rely on Nuclear/Wave/Wind mix. Some parts of the world will be completely reliant on Ethanol others will be reliant on Electricity and others still will be reliant on H2.

The mass production you propose in an earlier post simply cannot happen unless 'cookie-cutter' economies exist. The cost to build a highly efficient facility is only practical if it spread out over millions of like models.

Perhaps differing countries will adapt differently to their individual needs, but there again, that is economy-driven, and will decrease the global market for mass production.

Where did I say we have to move cities?

My bad, I somehow misread your statement.

We just need to rethink development to reduce the need for cars. Redevelopment happens on timescales of decades so we have enough time to adapt.

The danger in this is that it is not possible to build cities as such while allowing people to choose their lifestyle, location, or anything else. In NYC, for example, there is little need for a personal auto. There is also very little room to build, so most people have to live in apartments or at best, small townhomes. Now, if someone chooses to live that way, so be it, but if we 'have' to change how we build cities, we have to remove those personal freedoms that would come from the ability to choose where and how one lives. You're talking pure socialism.

Really? So you disagree that we've hit Worldwide Peak oil in 2006? It was confirmed by 2007 refining capacity numbers and the decline should be even steeper this year.

Yes, I disagree. Our only restriction to oil production right now is the number of places being drilled in, and the number of operational refineries. These are not indicative of an oil shortage, but of a processing shortage.

Peak oil has already hit and it's going to get progressively worse. Not doomsaying here just saying we're gonna have to make adjustments. And no the speculators are not driving up the price of oil, they are just scapegoats and any regulation of the Oil Speculation market will just drive prices up as all regulation does.

Please refer to my previous statements on this. We are not at peak oil, and no one is seriously expecting to be at peak oil any time soon in the energy industry. You are regurgitating propaganda.

As for speculation not raising the cost, how exactly does a product being bought and resold several times over not raise the final price? Believe me, this is not being done for the thrill; it is being done for profit.

Regulating C02 emissions would do the same thing btw. Just drive up the price of being green. God damn I hate red tape....

Oh, sure, get me all geared up to argue with you and you come up with this... Agreed.

Not all agricultural "waste" is used. A lot of it is just dumped because they generate way too much of the stuff. Cellulose is one such waste product that we generate in huge quantities and can be used for things from Plastic to Fuel though not very efficiently right now.

What happens to this waste if we do nothing with it? Does it not rot and turn back into topsoil? Does not topsoil provide nutrients for more flora?

The demand is there but the price hasn't reached a point where people are willing to go to them. The argument goes like this. I won't build it because there is no market, but there won't be a market unless I start building and selling it.

This is exactly why it takes time to get things to market. The initial models of anything new are very expensive because they are essentially hand-made. As people begin to buy, the makers invest that income in more efficient machinery and can make the next batch cheaper. Eventually, the product becomes affordable if enough are sold. This is my point: the economy will not allow an overnight change, so we must take any advantages in present technology while we wait for the newer technologies to become available to the average people.

It won't change, They are seeing just how baddly the American companies are being beat by Asian imports and they see the winds changing direction.

Perhaps it won't. I personally wouldn't bet money on there not being any gas-powered Mercedes after a certain point just yet.

Eu contraire ineed Average life expectancy of cars on the road are around 5 years. The batteries in lead acids last 10 years(got a Grid Tied PV system with Gel Lead Acids and they are guaranteed for 80% capacity for 10 years)

I don't know where you get your life expectancy info from, but I rarely have owned a car that was less than 5 years old. I did purchase a new 1986 Riviera, which lasted 17 years and had about 600,000 miles on it when I parked it.

On the other hand, I cannot think of a single lead-acid battery which has lasted me more than 6 years, out of the dozens I have bought in my lifetime. If they last ten years at 80% in hybrids, something is wrong here... and I found out what, read on:

I've read the exact opposite from New York Taxi cab drivers(i'll look for the link). They've had 5 years experience with them.

I found some info on the Toyota Prius. ( john1701a.com... ). They use NiMH batteries, not lead-acid. I will therefore wait and see if market results mirror the expectations. If they do, you will have been correct in this assertion (except for the battery type, and that was both of us).

RFID is the answer(never thought I'd ever say that LOL!)

Then the question is moot IMO.

Read that whole thread, it's very intriguing.

I scanned over most of it, and yes it is intriguing. I notice that the system was energized in April, so it has been operating for 4 months so far. Interesting at this point, hopefully it will work well, but I want to see long-term (2-3 years) results before I comment much on it.

The Tesla EV has a range of around 220 miles on a single charge. Unfortunately they use Li-Ion. One way we can get around the cost of the batteries is to not sell them to the owners but lease them along with the car.

Now here is where I have a problem. Apparently we are both excited about the newer technologies, but I am looking for results before I hinge my hopes on them, and you are stating they are inevitable and including that word 'we'.

'We' can lease the battery packs? Are you on the Board of Directors of the company that makes the Tesla? I certainly am not, and unless you are, neither of us have any say-so about what 'they' get to do. It's not a socialized world (yet), and these new and exciting ideas are being researched by individuals and individual companies. They do this for profit, not to be nice and green. As long as this fact is not accepted, the only new technologies we get will be inadequate for our needs, because 'we' cannot understand 'my' needs.

Capitalism is a fact, and a system that has served the world well for the last 200+ years. It will not go away overnight, and unless 'we' are involved directly with the companies on the cutting edge of this technology, 'we' have nothing to say about how or if it is implemented.

Oh, and I'm sorry, my install of Firefox tends to freeze up on the You-Tube videos (never have figured out why). I'll try to get to it in Internet Exploder later.

TheRedneck

reply to post by sardion2000

As for Gasoline stations, I forsee that they will turn into cyrogenically cooled quick charge stations. Ok maybe not, but I do see a future for those stations. Make EV's modular so you can slide the battery packs and on the fly and change them at a service station. Yeah they are heavy so you could adapt some robotics to help you. Just swap out the dead batteries and put fresh ones in. It would be faster than filling up your car with gas.

I have thought of this as a possibility as well, but then you have one big problem. Most people complain about having to go inside to pay for the gas; do you think they will complain any less about having to lug heavy battery packs into and out of their cars? Sure, attendants could be used, but since when have you seen an actual service station? All of them in the US are self-serve (I think Canada has full service). Will the market bear the costs of retooling to stock and recharge these battery packs, plus the need to transport bad packs back to the factory for refurbishing and replace them with new ones? Will customers pay for the packs, knowing they have to lug them in and out of the car? Will the customers pay the costs associated with having attendants do it for them? the whole concept seems very inconvenient to the consumer to me, and consumer convenience sells.

Since I have my character limit back ( ), I should state here that I know I am a bit antagonistic when someone takes the 'we' approach mentioned in my last post. the reason is that I actually do research privately on power generation and control systems. But I do it for one simple reason: profit of some sort. When 'I' becomes 'we', I stop. Period. I didn't invest a lifetime of my savings into tools and education to be forced to share it with the rest of humanity for nothing in return.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The mass production you propose in an earlier post simply cannot happen unless 'cookie-cutter' economies exist. The cost to build a highly efficient facility is only practical if it spread out over millions of like models.

Don't get me started on the personal fabrication revolution. That is a subject for another thread(perhaps you would like to start it?)

Yes, I disagree. Our only restriction to oil production right now is the number of places being drilled in, and the number of operational refineries. These are not indicative of an oil shortage, but of a processing shortage.
...

Please refer to my previous statements on this. We are not at peak oil, and no one is seriously expecting to be at peak oil any time soon in the energy industry. You are regurgitating propaganda.

Really, so Bloomberg, Forbes, et cetera are propagandizing the issue? I still have the news paper around somewhere(financial post) so i'll try to scan it in. The numbers for 2008 will confirm the peak.

Now here is where I have a problem. Apparently we are both excited about the newer technologies, but I am looking for results before I hinge my hopes on them, and you are stating they are inevitable and including that word 'we'.

Why play around with wording? I'm sure you know what I meant.

'We' can lease the battery packs? Are you on the Board of Directors of the company that makes the Tesla? I certainly am not, and unless you are, neither of us have any say-so about what 'they' get to do. It's not a socialized world (yet), and these new and exciting ideas are being researched by individuals and individual companies. They do this for profit, not to be nice and green. As long as this fact is not accepted, the only new technologies we get will be inadequate for our needs, because 'we' cannot understand 'my' needs.

Never once did I suggest I am on the board of directors or anything. I was a Nanoengineering student for a time before my health forced me to withdraw but that is my only claim to fame. I have faith in market forces just as I have faith that the price of oil will drive innovation(which it is, if you only knew half the stuff I know about but can't discuss due to NDA's.....).

BTW, Peak Oil was treated as a proven fact by the majority of my professors for whatever that is worth. I did ask back when I was in school earlier this year if the numbers were accurate... never got an answer back gotta email him to see if he crunched the numbers.

I wouldn't hurt from some government help though. Not regulation except maybe changing building codes to make PV standard once thin films become ubiquitous.

Capitalism is a fact, and a system that has served the world well for the last 200+ years. It will not go away overnight, and unless 'we' are involved directly with the companies on the cutting edge of this technology, 'we' have nothing to say about how or if it is implemented.

I'm making all my predictions based on market forces not regulatory forces. They don't work period.

As for the speculator comment, I meant to say that they do not have as much as an effect as people think. 5 to 10 % is what most of my friends who are still in University seem to think(i got a few economist friends, always good to have them around eh?)

Yeah I am excited but most of my excitement comes from seeing a lot of these new technologies work in laboratory settings and simulated real world settings and not press releases as you probably assume .

There is nothing to worry about people, we got this problem under control. It will still require some painful adjustments however. Change is always painful. I just hope we haven't backed ourselves into a corner over this Iran issue. An attack now would force us all to adapt much faster then normal.(How hard would it be for them to block the Straight of Hamuz again? What about Al Q. blocking off the Straight of Malacca (sp?) ) That is what keeps me up at night not Peak Oil.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by sardion2000]

reply to post by sardion2000

Don't get me started on the personal fabrication revolution. That is a subject for another thread(perhaps you would like to start it?)

If you are referring to the issue I think you are referring to, I'm way ahead of you. try this: www.abovetopsecret.com... and my apologies if it isn't what you meant.

Really, so Bloomberg, Forbes, et cetera are propagandizing the issue? I still have the news paper around somewhere(financial post) so i'll try to scan it in. The numbers for 2008 will confirm the peak.

Yes, they are. Why shouldn't they? The more people believe there is an oil shortage, the more they will suffer from higher prices with a minimum of complaint. Don't tell me you trust large corporations.

The numbers reflect how much oil was pumped, how much was refined, etc. I'm sure they do show a peak, as the number of refineries and pumping sites is declining. This does not mean there is no more oil, it means we are not pumping more oil. There is a difference.

Why play around with wording? I'm sure you know what I meant.

I believe I am learning what you meant as we discuss this issue, but initially, no, I was under the impression you felt things would happen based on political agendas and not on market forces. Wording is something that can be easily misinterpreted, and if I misinterpreted yours, my apologies.

Never once did I suggest I am on the board of directors or anything. I was a Nanoengineering student for a time before my health forced me to withdraw but that is my only claim to fame. I have faith in market forces just as I have faith that the price of oil will drive innovation(which it is, if you only knew half the stuff I know about but can't discuss due to NDA's.....).

No, but I did interpret it that way. Again,. my apologies for misjudging your intentions.

I also have several things in the works, and while I obviously have no NDAs with myself, I won't discuss them here for reasons just as obvious.

BTW, Peak Oil was treated as a proven fact by the majority of my professors for whatever that is worth. I did ask back when I was in school earlier this year if the numbers were accurate... never got an answer back gotta email him to see if he crunched the numbers.

Peak oil was accepted for quite some time. I used to believe it as well, until I did some researching into... well, some researching. Point is that I realized how very possible it is that the planetary processes create oil out of the individual elements, both of which are in ready supply. Add to that a number of previously exhausted wells around the world have been revisited and found to be full of oil again. I don't think dinos are still dying for us, do you?

I wouldn't hurt from some government help though. Not regulation except maybe changing building codes to make PV standard once thin films become ubiquitous.

I would resist any change to the building codes, except of course to recognize any new technology. That's one major problem with building codes anyway: they tend to require older technology because they simply do not keep current with technology.

I could, however, see tax breaks to help get the technology started.

I'm making all my predictions based on market forces not regulatory forces. They don't work period.

Hmmm, I was getting pretty worked up over a word wasn't I?

As for the speculator comment, I meant to say that they do not have as much as an effect as people think. 5 to 10 % is what most of my friends who are still in University seem to think(i got a few economist friends, always good to have them around eh?)

I think your friends might be working with old data. The number of speculators has ballooned tremendously in the past year or so, and has given rise to an economic bubble. That is, (in my own wording, of course ) where supply/demand of the product being speculated becomes less important to the price than the supply/demand of speculation itself.

Recent reports have placed speculation at 60%. I believe them.

Yeah I am excited but most of my excitement comes from seeing a lot of these new technologies work in laboratory settings and simulated real world settings and not press releases as you probably assume .

Well, with the University ties you obviously have, I would expect that. Still, be forewarned, sometimes an old redneck can wander out of his woods and change history...

There is nothing to worry about people, we got this problem under control. It will still require some painful adjustments however. Change is always painful. I just hope we haven't backed ourselves into a corner over this Iran issue. An attack now would force us all to adapt much faster then normal.(How hard would it be for them to block the Straight of Hamuz again? What about Al Q. blocking off the Straight of Malacca (sp?) ) That is what keeps me up at night not Peak Oil.

Change does not have to be painful; I will vehemently disagree with you there. Change can be good. It all depends on how forced the change is.

And sleep well. I don't think Al-Quaeda will be able to do much to our oil supply. They can knock down a couple of towers, sure, but how much oil was in those towers? The oil companies aren't huge and powerful for no reason.

TheRedneck

It is my understand that if you use hydrogen to drive you car what is to protect it in case you have a accident and hydrogen tends to explode. If you have a steel caseing around the tank then it adds weight to the car. Electric would seem the most logical way to go but I doubt that I will ever see it in my lifetime.