Why are we still using gas for our vehicles?

I posted this the other day on a thread about HHO the water generated Hydrogen gas where a couple of ATS members are already successfully running their cars and even motorcycles with HHO injection.

Part of the reason as to why gasoline has been the mainstay for fuel is that it volumetric ally contains more energy than other hydrocarbon fuel sources such as wood or coal for example.

And gasoline is also a natural by product of the oil refining process anyway.

Gasoline has more energy density than most other hydrocarbon products...but only about a third of that of Hydrogen.

There is some debate about the energy required to generate sufficient Hydrogen but people forget that our car's alternators produce between 70-100 Amperes or about 7-10 the amount of current necessary to kill a man.
The voltage regulator shunts the amount of juice the Alternator limiting it to around 14.5 volts as the engine's RPM's rise.

Thus there is plenty of energy produced by the car's electrical system...and hence why one can drive such powerful subwoofers and sound systems with a standard alternator...for the car only requires a fraction of what is mechanically produced and to charge the battery, with the excess juice is just going to waste and dissipated as heat anyway.

With almost three times the concentration of energy as that of Gasoline a little HHO goes a long way.

Energy Density Table


Below is an energy density table for comparison purposes.

J = Joules are the standard scientific units of heat energy produced as a result of combustion.


Storage Type_____________Specific Energy (MJ/kg)


Hydrogen Gas ____________________143

Methane (1.013 bar, 15C) ____________55.6

Natural Gas _______________________53.6

LPG (Propane)_____________________49.6

Gasoline (Petrol)___________________46.4

Diesel Fuel________________________46.2

Gasohol E10_______________________43.5




en.wikipedia.org...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is no legitimate conversation to be had when the answer is clearly solar. You know how we know that's the answer? Because people currently do it.

1 - Place on your house approximately 2,000 kWh worth of solar energy.
2 - Buy electric car.
3 - Only charge car at home which is powered completely from the sun.

Problem solved.

The reason why it's not being implemented or made mainstream is obvious. When they say "we need to focus on renewable energy", they are lying. We have the answers. All of them.

reply to post by Cuervo


So... when I need to drive the 180 mile one-way trip to my home town to visit my brothers or cousins... where is it that I will stop, in about 60-mile incriments, to recharge for 4+ hours?

Sure - it may get 100 miles to the charge when you first install the batteries - but you're going to be getting about 75-60 for about two years after your first six months of owning it, and it will be down to about 40 miles at the 4 year mark.

And those batteries aren't cheap or eco-friendly.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Cuervo

 

So... when I need to drive the 180 mile one-way trip to my home town to visit my brothers or cousins... where is it that I will stop, in about 60-mile incriments, to recharge for 4+ hours?

Sure - it may get 100 miles to the charge when you first install the batteries - but you're going to be getting about 75-60 for about two years after your first six months of owning it, and it will be down to about 40 miles at the 4 year mark.

And those batteries aren't cheap or eco-friendly.

You are just speculating. These aren't your typical car batteries that run your headlights.

As far as travelling farther than 100 miles, the stations they should be making would have "swap-out" features so you don't have to wait 4 hours. These facilities would be far less expensive and difficult to make than any gas station. But even before the infrastructure is in place to build these stations, the vast majority of the population would be fine with a 100 mile limit.

On top of that, the technology for it is rapidly advancing. Or, more realistically, they are being allowed to unveil tech that they've had since the 60's as legislation allows.

reply to post by Cuervo

You are just speculating.

The quickest way to piss me off.

AT2, USNR - Graduated top of my class in Aviation Electronics Technician - Intermediate level maintenance training (that's component level). I was the top of my class in vocational electronics training. I was on the solar car team at the local college before I was out of high school.

I've got an ego and it's damned well deserved in this field.

These aren't your typical car batteries that run your headlights.

Actually, Lead-Acid batteries are better for the application when coupled with a popper current-limiting circuit. They are cheaper and have a more favorable loss of capacity over time.

NiMH are equal to - if not better - but, again, these aren't AAs we're talking about. They are going to be operating at much higher cell voltages and having a lot more current drawn off of them. The best technologies out there would allow for only about 1000-1500 recharge cycles before needing to be replaced to ensure reliability. That would be a seriously expensive array - about 3000-5000 USD depending upon how large and some other details. And it would need to be replaced about every 2 years - 4 years maximum.

Consider that electricity isn't exactly cheap these days, and you've got a considerably different problem.

Lithium-Ion have problems with cell voltages and that they are not at all good for heavy current applications (such as motors) - this is why you don't see them in hobbyist remote control vehicle sector very often - those applications run a high risk of damaging the battery without proper discharge-control circuitry, and with such circuitry in place, you have serious limits on the amount of power that can be delivered.

Lithium-Ion also suffer one cataclysmic problem. It doesn't really matter how much they are charged and discharged (like with other batteries). Their capacity degrades over time - period. The car sits on a dealership lot for a year? The batteries will be little different from a car that has been being driven for a year. This also complicates manufacturing - as Lithium-Ion batteries have a shelf-life and an operational half-life.

They have advantages in being light and offering a greater energy density than many other battery types - but they are not really an ideal system.

As far as travelling farther than 100 miles, the stations they should be making would have "swap-out" features so you don't have to wait 4 hours.

/checks the battery on his notebook

It weighs about 1.5 lbs and has about 73 Watt-hours of power in it. (14.4V for 4.91 Amp-Hours) ... I'm getting 70.709 Watt-Hours calculated out from the cell-voltage and rated current capacity - but the label rates it at 73 watt-hours... whatever.

Anyway - these are some of the higher-rated types of lithium-ion batteries out there, used in computers. You know how HP, Dell, etc are all competing for the mobile computers that can last all of five minutes longer than the competitor.

Your average highway vehicle uses up about 8-12 kilowatts for an hour of highway driving. This should give you an idea of what you're suggesting. Even talking in ideal scenarios - the most energy-dense Lithium-Ion batteries out there offer 250Watt-hours/kilogram. To get an hour of driving, you need roughly 6 kilograms of battery. However - these are for more ideal battery figures - high-density batteries are not optimized for high-power situations. Batteries that work better in that situation are less dense - in the range of 150 Watt-hours/kilogram

Further - these "swap out stations" are going to have to provide a dock for each battery to be recharged. There is also the problem of old batteries being "dumped" on these recharge stations. When your battery gets old, just go swap it out with a newer one at the recharge-dock and take yours back home.

You are talking about just readily swapping-out components that cost just as much, if not more than your engine costs today. It's the single most costly component on an electric vehicle. Not to mention they will be heavy -HOT- (from powering your car), and rather dirty.

These facilities would be far less expensive and difficult to make than any gas station.

I beg your pardon!

Each battery being recharged requires its own regulating circuitry - that isn't exactly cheap. To facilitate more rapid charging while preventing damage to the battery, active cooling systems would have to be installed (and not just fans). these facilities are also going to be drawing massive amounts of power. For a single battery to be recharged in the time-span of four hours, and the average battery holding 40 Kilowatt-hours, 10 kilowatts have to be drawn each hour (disregarding system inefficiencies). Some of your busier gas stations receive well over 100 customers per hour.

You're looking at power levels in the ranges of megawatt-hours to keep up with customer demand. That's massive amounts of power to regulate. It's -FAR- from cheap to install - and it's even more expensive to operate while being extremely sensitive to electrical storms. You're easily looking at tens of millions of dollars to set up one of these stations with the more efficient and reliable solid-state regulation and switching systems that are capable of handling such demand.

And with those kinds of power demands - gas stations are going to need their own power plants (or at least be assigned their own power grid). Which may be more efficient - but it won't be salvation from high energy prices. Though it should be noted that it'll cost anywhere from $3-7 for the power to recharge a 40 Kilowatt-hour battery.

But even before the infrastructure is in place to build these stations, the vast majority of the population would be fine with a 100 mile limit.

The reason people have a car is because of the convenience and freedom it offers. The bus is a far cheaper way to go to and from work. So are subways/metro-lines. (where either are available). I could also ride my bike to almost any place of business inside this town and most of the places that offer employment - and realistically walk to/from just about 80% of the grocery stores in town.

Why would I choose to drive? Because I don't have to stand in the rain, spend half an hour in the heat, or lug around 35 lbs of groceries in flimsy plastic bags. I can go where I want, when I want, without having to consult a schedule or wait. I can even run my friends to see people in other cities and just have to hit up a gas station along the way. I don't have to exchange a part of my vehicle, either.

For this reason - the system I described in an earlier post is far more practical. It combines the benefits of an electrical car with the practicality of chemical storage and generation systems. Though it, too, would be a horribly immature product without more well developed power storage systems.

On top of that, the technology for it is rapidly advancing. Or, more realistically, they are being allowed to unveil tech that they've had since the 60's as legislation allows.

Believe it or not, kiddo, the military/government doesn't have the most advanced technology. The AWG-9 radar used on the F-14 Tomcat was one of the most advanced radars of the day - being highly classified at the time and feared for its track-while-scan abilities and being able to track 24 targets simultaneously while engaging 6. The core of its TWS capabilities came from an 8-bit 8080 microprocessor.

The thing you need to do to understand what the military uses is look at break-through technologies announced by various -companies-. Like with some recent announcements of on-die fiber-optic interconnects. That technology has likely been developed for, or will soon be incorporated into, restricted access programs. It is horribly expensive to manufacture those solutions - hundreds and thousands of dollars a part (depending upon the part, obviously).

It's rare for the military to have the budget to be able to afford and justify the funding of classified development projects on standard things - like batteries and plastics. The only things they can afford to fund these days are those with a direct and nearly exclusive defense application - better radar absorbent material, better infra-red seeker technology, etc. The rest is all funded privately and publicly under unclassified grants and programs. Break-through technologies in those areas then get picked up in a process similar to COTS development for the military.

Sure - things are always advancing - but you don't wager on what may be. You wager on what you can do. Right now - an all-electric car system just doesn't make sense in the slightest. You can run the car off of an all electric system - you just need to equip it with a gas generator and a fuel tank - as well as wrap in some other ways (like photovoltaic paint) to generate power.

reply to post by Aim64C


I appreciate your robust reply and it shows you definitely have an interest in the field but some of the things you attacked are already serviceable. I don't want to "piss you off" but I think you are overlooking products and facilities that already exist.

You can charge most rechargeable vehicles through a domestic outlet (with a converter provided by the manufacturer) so charging stations being built now are, indeed, simpler than you make it sound. Certainly, you don't think gas stations are cheap to make and maintain, do you?

Also, in the set-ups I was talking about, the people charge their car at home... where their electricity is solely derived from solar. So it doesn't matter how much electricity costs because, in reality, it costs nothing.

As far as battery long-life, Nissan insists they will retain 80-90% of their power after 10 years. That's not bad. And when I was talking about battery swapping, there are modules inside the packs that can be changed individually. These could be leased by various stations for hot-swapping of fresh ones.

This is definitely the solution. The technology is only going to make it more convenient.

Does anyone know what happened to the guy who had 10 murder attempts on his life for deveoping a car that ran on water? He was supposed to make an anouncement May 4th? It didn't happen. I checked the thread on the 5th and a Homeland security warrning came up? Who's got the scoop?



reply to post by jaycen420

Originally posted by Cuervo
There is no legitimate conversation to be had when the answer is clearly solar. You know how we know that's the answer? Because people currently do it.

1 - Place on your house approximately 2,000 kWh worth of solar energy.
2 - Buy electric car.
3 - Only charge car at home which is powered completely from the sun.

Problem solved.

The reason why it's not being implemented or made mainstream is obvious. When they say "we need to focus on renewable energy", they are lying. We have the answers. All of them.

You are going to need an acre of solar panels that take hundreds of barrels of oil to manufacture. Problem not solved.

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by Cuervo
There is no legitimate conversation to be had when the answer is clearly solar. You know how we know that's the answer? Because people currently do it.

1 - Place on your house approximately 2,000 kWh worth of solar energy.
2 - Buy electric car.
3 - Only charge car at home which is powered completely from the sun.

Problem solved.

The reason why it's not being implemented or made mainstream is obvious. When they say "we need to focus on renewable energy", they are lying. We have the answers. All of them.

You are going to need an acre of solar panels that take hundreds of barrels of oil to manufacture. Problem not solved.

This is not true. You are buying into whatever downplaying nonsense the energy industry wants you to believe. You can create 1,500 kWh on one roof top (of a normal sized house, mind you, not a mansion). You can separately have a panels on the car port to power the car (this is being done by some Nissan Leaf owners).

Why you believe it would take an acre of panels to power a home and a car is a symptom of propaganda at work. It is doable and it is efficient. In fact, compared to a finite source like oil, an infinite source, like sunlight, is infinitely more efficient.

Do you think it is a coincidence that every source of power that does not require you to buy something is downplayed as "ineffective"? Hydro, solar, wind... those are all effective, especially at a residential level. Stop thinking you need some centralized source to power a town, people! Each home can power itself (AND A CAR). How do we know? Because people are doing it right now!

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by Cuervo
There is no legitimate conversation to be had when the answer is clearly solar. You know how we know that's the answer? Because people currently do it.

1 - Place on your house approximately 2,000 kWh worth of solar energy.
2 - Buy electric car.
3 - Only charge car at home which is powered completely from the sun.

Problem solved.

The reason why it's not being implemented or made mainstream is obvious. When they say "we need to focus on renewable energy", they are lying. We have the answers. All of them.

You are going to need an acre of solar panels that take hundreds of barrels of oil to manufacture. Problem not solved.

This is not true. You are buying into whatever downplaying nonsense the energy industry wants you to believe. You can create 1,500 kWh on one roof top (of a normal sized house, mind you, not a mansion). You can separately have a panels on the car port to power the car (this is being done by some Nissan Leaf owners).

Why you believe it would take an acre of panels to power a home and a car is a symptom of propaganda at work. It is doable and it is efficient. In fact, compared to a finite source like oil, an infinite source, like sunlight, is infinitely more efficient.

Do you think it is a coincidence that every source of power that does not require you to buy something is downplayed as "ineffective"? Hydro, solar, wind... those are all effective, especially at a residential level. Stop thinking you need some centralized source to power a town, people! Each home can power itself (AND A CAR). How do we know? Because people are doing it right now!

edit on 12-5-2011 by Cuervo because: only on second cup of coffee

I lived off the grid for a few months. I had to really be aware of how much energy things use. Forget using a full size refrigerator and many other things we take for granted. I will do the math and see how many square feet of solar panels I would need to power my commute at 60 mph. Sorry to be so critical, but so many people think solar panels will save the planet, but we need more than that to power us. I have seen ads for local companies that will equip your house with solar panels. They fail to mention that these are not photovoltaic panels, but just water heating ones. I built a huge solar water heating system to heat my boss's hot tub. It never really paid for itself and was problematic. Maybe photovoltaic panels will get better and cheaper.

reply to post by earthdude


Sorry for you experience. Photovoltaic is pretty much what people mean now days when solar is being discussed. And 1,500 kWhs is 1,500 kWhs... which can power a large fridge easily. My household rarely goes over 1,000 in a month and we aren't even being frugal or energy conscious about our usage. It's an investment and going in halfsies can be frustrating, as you can attest to, but it can be very effective and rewarding if you go all the way with it.

Also, imagine the neighbor's confusion when the city power goes out and you are flaunting your house lights like nothing happened. That's another huge benefit. Being reliant on centralized power source is scary and is just asking for trouble.

Ok I did the math, I was wrong. I would only need 4 200watt solar panels to power my vehicle.
green.autoblog.com...

Originally posted by Aim64C

Originally posted by Silicrikk
You can produce your own hydrogen and store it yourself. You can actually run a solar panel and the leftover electricity can produce hydrogen from water. Crude oil,Gasoline have hydrocarbons hmmmmmmm.

The problem with electrolysis methods is that the catalyst rods used are often corroded. Fuel cells that work bi-directionally do exist, and are pretty neat, but run into similar problems of corrosion of the catalyst.

The other problem is that none of these offer compression of hydrogen - which, in itself, requires energy (and in no short demand).

Further - hydrogen is -extremely- combustible in any concentration while having nearly twice the energy density of gasoline (depending upon what you set as the baseline - molar calculations versus mass versus liquid densities).... you've got a damned fine bomb if you decide to drive around with a large tank of compressed hydrogen. This is further exacerbated by the fact that hydrogen is a gas well into cryogenic temperatures - unlike gasoline - a ruptured tank equals explosive decompression combined with rapid diffusion within our oxygen-rich atmosphere.

Hydrogen cars? You call can drive them after I build my space ship and leave ... then you all can drive around in inadvertent weapons of mass destruction.

Stainless steel helps in this regard...also Titanium.

This is why the HHO on demand systems are much safer than pressurized hydrogen storage. No hydrogen is actually stored and that which is generated is being readily combusted.

It's actually safer than driving around with 20 gallons of Gasoline. Remember the exploding Ford Pintos ?
And the Grand Cherokees which went up in flames with a 20 mph rear end collision ?

Ever see the fuel air explosive ? MOAB ?

reply to post by Cuervo


your " battery swap stations " proposal is utterly unworkable

to work - the battery packs of all vehicles would have to have the same voltage , chemistry , form factor - with compatible connections , mountings , lifting points etc etc - any significant deviations would require multiple systems for ach varient

to work - the " swap station " would need to keep ` in stock ` enough battery packs to service all the customers they would get in a period equal to 1/2 the charge period , at a bare minimum - who will pay for them ?

who would swap the battery packs , the customer - cue incompetance , damage and liability issues , a robotic automated system - cue cost , a human technician - cue couts

lastly - the killer - battery condition / servicability

there is a scenariou - you pull into a swap station in your 2 day old car - that you have just driven 25o miles from home - and recieve in " exchange " for your barand new pattery that has never been carched since new - a 3 year old pack that has been recharged 250 times - and 20 miles down the road - developes an internal short curcuit in a cell and dies - now how is liable for your losses - who will replace your battery / recover your OEM pack etc tec ?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Cuervo

 

your " battery swap stations " proposal is utterly unworkable

to work - the battery packs of all vehicles would have to have the same voltage , chemistry , form factor - with compatible connections , mountings , lifting points etc etc - any significant deviations would require multiple systems for ach varient

to work - the " swap station " would need to keep ` in stock ` enough battery packs to service all the customers they would get in a period equal to 1/2 the charge period , at a bare minimum - who will pay for them ?

who would swap the battery packs , the customer - cue incompetance , damage and liability issues , a robotic automated system - cue cost , a human technician - cue couts

lastly - the killer - battery condition / servicability

there is a scenariou - you pull into a swap station in your 2 day old car - that you have just driven 25o miles from home - and recieve in " exchange " for your barand new pattery that has never been carched since new - a 3 year old pack that has been recharged 250 times - and 20 miles down the road - developes an internal short curcuit in a cell and dies - now how is liable for your losses - who will replace your battery / recover your OEM pack etc tec ?

I think you are missing some details. Modern electric cars (like the Leaf) have modules that can be switched out from within the battery; you don't need to replace the whole battery. This requires nothing but storage space. No mounting, no down-time, etc. Stations can be made to have accounts with customers so you just pay a premium for the swap-out service.

Also, you are grossly underestimating the battery life and sustainability. Throw away your service manuals from the 70's and look at what Nissan, Toyota, and others are doing today.

And as far as "your proposal wouldn't work". It's not mine and it does work. But lets say you don't believe the swap method... you can fast charge a completely empty Nissan in 30 minutes at a station. Small inconvenience to save you 50 bucks. This is only getting faster.

There are solar panels that are hundreds of times more efficient than what's currently available on the market, but they cost thousands of dollars more to buy also. There was a show on Nova (PBS) not too long ago which mentioned them. So if these panels come down in price sometime in the near future, perhaps they could be used for helping to power electric cars or even the power plants themselves.

What we really need is new energy sources, if we ever want to get off oil. But as other have so astutely noted in this thread, it's not going to be an easy change. Were almost stuck with oil/gas for the time being at least.

If at some point in the near future someone was to release a free energy device that could replace the need for oil, then things would change drastically for the better, considering China, India, and other countries are on the rise and using up more of the worlds limited oil supplies. I'm not saying I know of such a device at this time of course. But I'm not sure when this would be possible, in the immediate future, and the individual not end up wearing concrete shoes, if you know what I'm saying.

reply to post by Cuervo

This is not true. You are buying into whatever downplaying nonsense the energy industry wants you to believe. You can create 1,500 kWh on one roof top (of a normal sized house, mind you, not a mansion). You can separately have a panels on the car port to power the car (this is being done by some Nissan Leaf owners).

You are out of your god damned mind. 1.5 MEGAWATT-HOURS?

Yeah - if we were on Mercury.

www.solar-estimate.org...

On average (as a general "rule of thumb") modern photovoltaics (PV) solar panels will produce 8 - 10 watts per square foot of solar panel area. For example, a roof area of 20 feet by 10 feet is 200 square-feet (20 ft x 10 ft). This would produce, roughly, 9 watts per sq-foot, or 200 sq-ft x 9 watts/sq-ft = 1,800 watts (1.8 kW) of electric power.

Which, honestly, I'm glad we don't live underneath a friggin' industrial laser. Means solar panels aren't gods of the energy producing world... but I think it's a pretty fair exchange.

Why you believe it would take an acre of panels to power a home and a car is a symptom of propaganda at work. It is doable and it is efficient. In fact, compared to a finite source like oil, an infinite source, like sunlight, is infinitely more efficient.

The computer you are on right now likely draws about 400-700 watts of power if you are on a desktop - up to 1.2 kilowatts if you are on an enthusiast rig.

Now - a machine drawing 1 watt of power for 1 hour needs 1 watt-hour of energy. Kind of follows, doesn't it?

So... just your desktop computer (sans monitor) will require about 100 square feet of solar panels to feed it. Your average microwave is well into the kilowatt range - and while you don't run it for an hour each day - when you start adding on things like refrigerators, ovens, TVs, lights (even CFLs add up -really- fast) fans, climate control, etc - it adds up fast.

The house my family lived in was above average in terms of size, and the whole roof was about 35x50 - as if you were measuring along the edge of the roof (so the added area from the slant of the roof is included). If we were to operate on the silly notion that all of those solar panels were optimally angled - about 1750 square feet is available. Assuming we are getting the upper end of things and producing 10 watts per square foot - that's 17500 - or 17.5 kilowatts.

Reality would probably place that down closer to 12 kilowatts - and you'd be lucky to pull 3-4 out on an overcast day.

Also, figure, these are averaged over the optimal five-hour period. Solar power generation before and after drops off considerably and exponentially. You're really only working with about 17.5x5 = 87.5 kilowatt-hours for the whole day - assuming optimal solar panel function and orientation.

Again - reality wouldn't be so kind - you'd be looking at more like 60 kilowatt hours for the whole day. More in the summer - less in the winter. You could design a house to operate on that kind of budget - but it would require some serious design focus - solar water heat (it's more efficient than solar-electric-heater), solar house heating (in the winter) - earth-contact design, and an entire electrical system designed to prioritize appliances. You want your house to shut down outlets in the living room before your late-night movie watching drains your reserves and you stumble around in the dark while your freezer thaws.

Don't get me wrong - photovoltaics are great. They are just not a silver bullet to the energy demands of the world. Even if they operated at 100% efficiency (as in - every ounce of energy the sun radiates upon the solar panel becomes electricity) - urban areas would be far from able to address their power requirements with solar panels.

Solar is more of a supplement than it is a staple power source. It's great when you've got lots of space to work with and bright sunny days. But you need something far more reliable - or we need far better efficiencies with much better energy storage systems.

Do you think it is a coincidence that every source of power that does not require you to buy something is downplayed as "ineffective"? Hydro, solar, wind... those are all effective, especially at a residential level. Stop thinking you need some centralized source to power a town, people! Each home can power itself (AND A CAR). How do we know? Because people are doing it right now!

Solar homes are engineered to be far more energy efficient than your average home - and to function much differently than your average home. That is why they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build. They are built as show-pieces and technology demonstrators, not as cost-effective solutions. Decent solar panel systems to augment your home power system -start- at about the cost of a brand new car - or about 100 months of electric bills for our house when we fell asleep with everything on most of the nights out of the month (Being on CMEC is much better than KCP&L - ours came from the dam).

You can see where designing a $500,000 house with a state-of-the-art solar power system is -not- exactly something most people can think of doing. Further - if you're using an electric car as an example of "people doing it right now" - they are not the average person, as they have either blown their entire credit limit on that vehicle or have far more money to spend than 90% of the rest of us.

It's part of research. People build these houses and systems to see how it works - to see what it costs and how it can be made better and more affordable. The people with these kinds of houses -are- saving money... in the sense that they planned to build a $500,000 home and this one doesn't cost as much to operate as more 'standard' house concepts.

Also, imagine the neighbor's confusion when the city power goes out and you are flaunting your house lights like nothing happened. That's another huge benefit. Being reliant on centralized power source is scary and is just asking for trouble.

This makes you certifiably insane.

First thing I'm doing when I notice the town is in a black-out, or the doom of some kind of apocalyptic crisis is upon us... is shutting off the damned lights.

When stuff like that happens - I don't want anyone to get the idea there is something my house has to offer them. People are stupid and would "swarm" a location where they might be able to find food, warmth, water, etc - and would simply destroy obstacles in their way - such as doors, windows... walls, my family, other people... those sorts of things.

You can charge most rechargeable vehicles through a domestic outlet (with a converter provided by the manufacturer) so charging stations being built now are, indeed, simpler than you make it sound. Certainly, you don't think gas stations are cheap to make and maintain, do you?

This is because the same power regulation systems that supply the car also serve to protect the battery during charging and discharging. At power stations, you would need similar systems embedded into each 'socket.' Further - to facilitate the kind of charging rates necessary, you would need fairly robust hardware, and more than a simple 120 outlet.

Assuming a 25 kWH battery, and a charge time of 4 hours, you need 5.125 kW going to that battery for four hours. That's an insane amount of power - far more than your stove uses with every heating element lit up. Batteries that can withstand that are going to be pretty expensive and live short lives.

Which leads into the next problem. Many gas stations along highways see well over 100 fuel-ups an hour. We'll go easy on the charge-station idea, and entertain a mere 100 vehicles per hour. Assuming they are johny-on-the-spot with battery swap, charge rate, etc - they will need a bare minimum of 400 charging docks to supply demand during peak.

Entire power draw for the facility? 400x5.125 is 2,050 kilowatts. 2.05 megawatts.

That's more power than a Nimitz class carrier uses conducting flight ops.

I know a number of gas stations along I-44 and I-70 see two to three times as many cars in an hour. These things are going to need their own power plant - or at least be put in their own power district.

Also, in the set-ups I was talking about, the people charge their car at home... where their electricity is solely derived from solar. So it doesn't matter how much electricity costs because, in reality, it costs nothing.

You are seriously mislead about solar, then.

You have your set-up costs, and you will have maintenance costs on the surface(s) protecting the panels from damage and the power conversion and storage systems. They may last a while - but, they are not going to be very cheap to replace when that is necessary, either.

Further - what about people like me? I live in an apartment building right now. Where do I charge my car? Do I run an extension cable out to it? Do I hound my landlord to put in a charging port tied to my electric meter? Where does the power for my apartment, the one below this one, and the one below that come from? The roof? We've already crunched the numbers on this one - solar panels on the roof don't cut it for a normal house - much less an apartment complex.

As far as battery long-life, Nissan insists they will retain 80-90% of their power after 10 years. That's not bad.

Much as I've read - those are all talk and no show. Battery technologies are improving - but it's become a bit of a game of matching the capabilities to the goals. A lot of car batteries are at the lowest end of the lithium-ion spectra in terms of energy/mass. This is because they need high power output (an issue with lithium-ions due to their high series resistance). A battery that can last that long is going to sacrifice a lot to do that. There's only so much that research and technology can compensate for.

And when I was talking about battery swapping, there are modules inside the packs that can be changed individually. These could be leased by various stations for hot-swapping of fresh ones.

That's... no different.

It's like taking rechargeable NiMH batteries to a LAN party versus battery-packs made for the controllers being used.

In fact - individual cells makes the whole thing hideously more complex. Each cell needs to be individually monitored by the charging system to prevent damage to the battery and the battery compartment of your vehicle from becoming a blow-torch of death ("damage to the battery" is the technical term for this - when it comes to Lithium-Ions, at least). Similarly, the discharge cycle monitors each cell to ensure one cell isn't being sent into deep-discharge (also known as "Final Flash", whereby it extinguishes its own life-force to power your vehicle, and/or set its surroundings on fire).

Usually - battery cells degrade at about the same rate since they stay in the same battery and the load is balanced across them at all times. ... Swapping out individual cells makes things much more complicated and unpredictable. Your car's charge may not take you nearly as far as you thought it would, but swapping out just one of the cells with a newer one may erase the problem. However - the opposite can also be true - swapping in a single newer cell could give you a sense of having far more range than you actually do.

This is definitely the solution. The technology is only going to make it more convenient.

Nope. Sorry.

Your solution is half-baked. You need some form of generator in the vehicle that utilizes some kind of chemical reaction to generate electrical power. This makes it expedient to refill and use for longer distance commutes, and the battery system allows it to be used in daily commutes. Charging and/or battery swapping may be popular with some people or in some regions, but the vehicle remains flexible without compromise.

The only thing you do is swap out the current drive train with an electric bus and tie the engine into a generator tuned for efficient power generation over being a drive system. You then simply expand the storage capacity of the electrical system of the car.

I estimate the technology to make this marketable to about 30% of the population will be available within the next 10 years - mainly restricted in terms of the storage system capabilities and the affordability of the kind of machining necessary for in-wheel electric drive systems. Marketable to 60% in 15 (8 years after market introduction, 5 after 30% marketability). Just a rough guess on my part - but you're mostly manufacturing-limited, here.

Why this is better? Independence. You're not slave to the outlet. Nor are you slave to the gas station. Charge your car on the outlet or in a sunny spot - but don't put off going to the city or map your route by swap-station availability. Live where there are charge stations and you want to use them? You can. Live where they still only have gas stations? You can still benefit from charging your vehicle at home while not sacrificing mobility and flexibility.

Why would you say that ????? you get like 100 miles to 20 oz of water. Housing Hydrogen aparently isn't easy, and it goes though metal. I learned this after years of dreaming. This idea started out as a torch. Google kenny kline h20 and check out the old news clip.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Why would you say that ????? you get like 100 miles to 20 oz of water. Housing Hydrogen aparently isn't easy, and it goes though metal. I learned this after years of dreaming. This idea started out as a torch. Google kenny kline h20 and check out the old news clip.

The reason water is so good at putting out fires is quite simple, really. It is, chemically, inert because it is one of the most electro-positive elements in existence bound with the most electro-negative out there, aside from chlorine. Oxygen is throwing a house party, and Hydrogen is a party animal. What it boils down to.

So, when people propose "running off of water" - they are either a few moles short of a chemistry project, or asking for your help to transfer their royal inheritance out of Zambia.

Let's elaborate.

When you separate oxygen and hydrogen, you split the chemical bonds. You have to add enough energy to the system that the two hydrogen atoms 'drift' away. These two are not easy to split up - you're going to have to get together an expert team of home wreckers and fund them well (played by chemical catalysts on the anode and cathode of a power supply).

So, we have hydrogen and oxygen split up.

Then, you recombine them in the process known as combustion. How much energy do you think you get back out? The same as it took to split them up.

So - running a car off of water is pure silliness as electrolysis is simply a chemical battery, of sorts.

There is, however, one exception - and one further elaboration that needs to be handled differently.

The exception is fusion. Hydrogen and oxygen are -both- fissile atoms - all forms (hydrogen-hydrogen, oxygen-oxygen, and hydrogen-oxygen - as well as a number of other reactions that lay in the realm of nuclear physics and result in different isotopes and all kinds of other stuff that I've never learned the equations for). Provided a practical form of fusion is achieved - running one's car off of water could be quite a literal expression, and it has often been stated that the amount of energy in a glass of water could power the vehicle well beyond its operational life. With power efficiencies to worry about - I somewhat doubt it would be -that- ideal... but even if you only need 100 liters over the life of the vehicle... a substantial improvement.

The elaboration is with hydrogen-injection systems.

This is a little tricky - and is based mostly on hypothetical conjecture. Engines operate on the ignition and expansion of a gas inside of a cylinder. Power is derived from both the volume of expansion and the rate of the expansion. By injecting hydrogen, one may be able to increase the rate of expansion and increase the power delivered in each stroke. When combined with -normal- gasoline combustion, this may provide a sort of 'multiplier' to the total energy delivered to the engine.

In this sense - it -may- improve engine performance above the amount of power drawn from the engine for hydrogen electrolysis.... but this would not be "running of of water" so much as it would be "using gasoline more efficiently."

Again - that one is purely conjecture and hypothetical reasoning on my part. Just so we are clear. I may revisit it and crunch some numbers on it - but I'm not overly optimistic that it would be worth the investment. "back in the day" - simple water injection systems were able to boost the expansion rate of gasoline and add a substantial boost to horsepower for no change in fuel consumption - though I imagine the cylinder experienced some corrosion issues.

the injection of hydrogen may be two-fold - the combustion of hydrogen releasing a substantial amount of energy combined with the expansion of water vapor along with a conventional atmosphere.

reply to post by Shirak


Educate yourself and start tinkering. Don't have any grand illusions about selling your invention or method that's when you start stepping on the monopolies toes. If you do it for you and maybe a few friends you'll do ok.
Really people need to stop complaining that there is no change and "be the change they wish to see in the world."

Well said. That sums it up nicely.