© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/why-not-a-wind-up-car/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
Many hybrid cars use an interesting system called “regenerative braking” to recapture some of the energy which is wasted with conventional braking systems. On a typical car, each wheel has a rotor disk, and braking is accomplished by causing the brake pads to squeeze the rotor and create friction which slows the car, converting the forward momentum into waste heat. But a hybrid doesn’t use the brake pads at all unless you hit the brakes hard… Instead, the car’s momentum is used to crank its electric motors, which slows the car while recharging the onboard batteries.
This brilliantly simple system is part of why hybrid cars are so fuel efficient in stop-and-go traffic. But hybrids have their downsides… For one, a modern hybrid’s batteries only last 8-10 years on average, and they are extremely expensive to replace, on the order of $3000-7000. Battery disposal is also a sticky problem, since Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries contain hazardous chemicals. In addition, although hybrids save some weight by including a smaller gas engine, they add it all back by including the heavy electrical components: two electric motors and the batteries.
Could there be a way of usefully recapturing a car’s kinetic energy on deceleration without adding so much weight, and without the expense and environmental impact of batteries? What about a wind-up automobile?
Just about every kid has played with some variety of wind-up toy, whether it’s wound with a tiny crank or by placing a wheeled toy on the floor and pulling it backwards. Such toys are propelled by a special spring called a torsion spring which is twisted when the toy is wound, and it acts as an energy storage device due to its inherent tendency to return to its original, unwound state. Often, gears inside such toys prevent the energy from being released too rapidly, so the stored energy is released at a steady rate. Garage door openers use the principle on a larger scale, using torsion springs to do much of the heavy lifting while a small, low-power electric motor makes up the difference.
An electric hybrid’s batteries essentially act as kinetic energy storage, and a lightweight car could theoretically use heavy-duty torsion springs to accomplish the same thing, using the springs’ torque to propel the vehicle whenever enough torque is available. Like a hybrid, a small combustion engine would start up to add additional power when needed, and a continuously variable transmission (CVT) would ensure that the stored energy is always used most efficiently. Such a vehicle might be called a Torsion Hybrid.
A torsion hybrid car could automatically wind its springs by engaging a winding gear during braking, or when traveling downhill. Additionally, its small combustion engine could be designed to constantly run at its most efficient RPM level, putting any excess horsepower to the task of spring-winding. One could also keep a winding station in one’s garage which rapidly charges the spring from an access shaft on the bottom of the vehicle. Even more creative ways of incrementally capturing momentum could be utilized, such as ratcheting gears in the shock absorbers which capture a bit of energy every time the car goes over a bump.
A torsion hybrid could utilize one large torsion spring, or an array of smaller springs. Winding more springs would mean decreased efficiency due to friction, but it would allow the car to use less expensive springs, and it would minimize the risk involved in the event of a sudden, unplanned release of a spring, which could happen in a car accident.
As compared to a conventional electric hybrid, a torsion hybrid could potentially have a lighter weight and cost less to produce, though one cannot know with certainty without a good deal of research. But the problem of battery disposal would certainly be eliminated, as would the need to replace spent batteries after 8-10 years. However several key questions remain… for instance, is there a metallic alloy capable of storing the energy that would be demanded in a torsion hybrid?
Ultimately, the real question is whether torsion energy storage is any more efficient than it’s electric hybrid cousin. Data indicates most electric hybrid regenerative braking systems work at less than 50% efficiency by the time the kinetic energy is converted into electricity, then put back into propelling the vehicle… but it is difficult to say what a torsion hybrid’s efficiency might be once friction is accounted for.
It is likely that I am not the first person to conceive of a torsion hybrid, and no doubt there are some serious engineering problems which I have not yet considered. But is it feasible? Is it moronic? Opinions are welcome.
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/why-not-a-wind-up-car/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
One issue that comes to mind is: what happens with all that stored energy in the event of an accident? If you’ve ever had a windup device come apart in your hand when it’s wound up you’ll know what I mean.
This reminds me of the idea of using a flywheel as an energy storage device.
Minor nitpick (and I even hesitate to state it, but here goes):
“Instead, the car’s momentum is used to crank its electric motors in reverse”
The motors don’t crank in reverse. A DC motor turns when electricity is applied, and generates electricity when turned. The motor simply turns but since it is being turned by the wheels, it is generating electricity. If you apply this energy to a load such as a resistor, it is converted to heat and there is a corresponding resistance to motion at the motor shaft (like a brake). In a hybrid vehicle, this energy can be used to charge a battery.
The motors are USED in a reverse way, not CRANKED in a reverse way. They continue to turn the same direction.
Try it. Find a toy DC motor and note that electricity is generated when the shaft is turned. Now apply a load to the motor terminals (or just connect the terminals together, which would represent a resistor of near zero ohms). Now try to turn the motor shaft. You’ll find that it is possible, but is very hard to do.
pebecker said: “The motors are USED in a reverse way, not CRANKED in a reverse way. They continue to turn the same direction.”
I see that you’re right… I misinterpreted the phrase “reverse the process” in one of the sources of information. Thanks for setting me straight.
Hopefully this isn’t a silly question, but couldn’t the spinning of the wheels be harnessed to generate electricity? Sort of like the way a hydroelectric dam generates its power through spinning? Would that make the vehicle [more] inefficient?
Harnessing electricity from the spinning wheels creates reistance, and slows the vehicle down… that’s how regenerative braking works. Anytime you want the vehicle to slow down, such as stopping or going downhill, it works great… but if you tried to generate electricity constantly, the car would have to work harder to maintain speed, and you’d end up using more power than you’d gain.
Most folks have already made the comments I was going too. You should definitely look at the flywheel thing, Alan. And bless your heart for giving a link to the CVT. I was trying to think of how to do it, and this should save me the trouble.
This is an idea worthy of analysis. The best way to compare alternative forms of energy storage is to calculate joules/kg. When one does this, gasoline comes WAY out on top (unless you consider something like hydrazine or nuclear fuels or antimatter). Batteries are rather poor. Flywheels could have a very high ratio, in theory at least.
It’s cool that you mentioned the hazards, which some might have overlooked. The more energy stored in the vehicle– reguardless of its form– the more damage done when the energy is released. If the spring stores as much energy as a tankful of gasoline, one can expect the same amount of mayhem when the spring comes out of its box.
If I have time (HA! HA HA HA!) I may try to crunch the numbers on this, but I’m not sure where to start.
I’m not sure of the feasability, but how about a hydraulic accumulator- storing hydraulic power against a high pressure spring? Same ideas apply – pump it up on braking or with a small engine driven high pressure hydraulic pump.
The spring idea is basically not feasible as the specific energy density of the available spring materials is too low. The flywheel idea is – but only for a hybrid car where the range due to the battery need only be of the order of perhaps 20 miles or so. The best composite materials boast specific energy densities close to 100Wh/Kg however they require accuracies of manufacture that costs an absolute fortune. A better solution is to build far cheaper less perfectly balanced flywheels with energy densities of the order of about 40Wh/Kg and put up with the extra weight. It is difficult to say if the flywheel will ever gain acceptance from a safty perspective though.
I’ve considered this since sophomore year of high school and come to one conclusion. The difficulty here has nothing to do with energy savings, new “technology” through modern engineering or anything otherwise brilliant. The difficulty is in the lag of an oil-immersed economy and the lack of congressional proactivity.
I find it hard to believe that a lack of engineering is behind the fact that a full-sized family vehicle is not capable of achieving around 200 m.p.g. with all of the capabilities of current vehicles. Or that the implementation of electric vehicles isn’t practical with battery exchange stations substituting for gas stations. Surely I could manufacture something and demonstrate fesability. I’d probably be shot, but I could do it. The real problem concerns auto makers sitting on patents, cooperating with OPEC and converting over to efficiency without severe economic reprecussions.
Here’s an idea for a full-size family vehicle.
-Tear-drop shaped station wagen (like the magnum, but more aerodynamic {fairings and stuff})
-Small gasoline powered V4 w/ 2 cyl shut-off
-Turbocharger w/ bypass option
-C.V.T.
-Hydraulic Regenerative Braking via hydraulic motor/pump and accumulator
-Disk brakes as well w/ computer control
Heck, you could even throw in the energy storing suspension using hydraulics and check valves.
This is not nearly as difficult as some make it out to be. It’s all politics.
Yes, it will travel well provided that enough gasoline is provided that there is it in it at all. Less of course, if you consider the partial pressure of the mixture. If this is left out of the solution, there will be none. It will go, however, if you put it in. The octane rating corresponds to the anti-kocking. It will reticulate accordingly. Once the reciprocation is factored in, credibility of the system is removed. I wonce owened a purple convertible and when I let my top down, people would frequently stare at it’s contents. I am, of course, included inside of it. So if you drive a car that is big and running on gasoline, that will not necesarility mean that it has to be evil. Force of evil is proportional to a gravitational factor. Fn = summation of dummies and meanies. I can prove it, but I will get shot if I do it because they don’t want you to no.
We should all skateboard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are many hybrid projects that use hydraulics, rather than electric storage. Hydraulic motors are very compact and accumulators are a known technology. The power boosts can be several times the power of the main engine; unfortunately, for relatively short periods and the accumulators are large. This is ideal, however, for delivery trucks, commercial and school buses. The vehicle transmission can be eliminated, ditto, the drive shaft, axles, etc. No disposal problem, no shock hazards, no complex and high cost electrical components.
I have been posting the following on the NY Times Environement forum for years (after a poster says there is no hope to replace ICE: So, I guess my idea needs re-iterating: Actually ‘certain’ persons are looking into wind-up cars using close-wound power springs (4 for each wheel–2 operating at one time, then switched over when first 2 run down.). Windup is achieved using PV cells and winder motor, with battery backup, and manual-windup backup (with extra keys, of course.) This project will eventually result in a link on the internet, but for now it is ‘hush-hush.’ (Couple this with flywheel option, and mileage per windup will surpass ICE vehicles.) In other words, there is short-term practical hope for a great future for all. Beats pedaling, too (although Chemist once mentioned that pedaling could be a wind-up option, also, keeping us healthier, to boot). Additional: wind-up generators would supplement power plants, too. [Now I am returning to my quite cool caverns.] :)
All points are mute. Nobody will do anything about it. Keep talking.
In this post I will briefly describe to other possibilities that can be ‘sleeked/streamlined’ into a vehicle (the first needing far-future developement; the second can be done now):
I must announce a possible newly ‘discovered’ (by me) heat source (confirmed by a scientist friend using calorimetry [using a modified DSC].) The basics are duplicatible (or I would not post it here). The idea started when I realized, while seeking monopole effects–but not related, that continually moving (at, say, 10Hz) bismuth next to the pole of a magnet would/should create measurable heat with the constant re-orientations of the dipoles in the bismuth (which is roughly how a diamagnetic material works, incidently–bismuth being the strongest diamagnetic material). My physicist friend explains it (after I gave him the idea) approximately this way: …heat produced as spin relaxations are coupled to phononic modes… ‘Nuf said, for now…. (I now must make room on a shelf for my second Nobel…) Carry on, All. ;#)
#2:
A group of us (now one physicist, two engineers, and myself, all longtime retired) have developed a ‘new’ wind-powered energy source that works Below wind speeds of 7 mph. We are on our 19th innovation. We are willing to altruistically describe our First innovative (but weak) “demo” prototype so that others can/might follow on a parallel course:
First take some plastic thread spools and imbed short, flexible (hairlike) glass fibers around the spools. (Yes, we used needles to press holes in the spools for the homemade drawn glass fibers, and yes it is hard to do, but that’s typical of prototypical work.) At each end of the spools attach (leave center hole clear) homemade wind cups that will catch the wind and spin the spools (if threaded on a teflon shaft, or similar). Arrange the spools on a shaft plus shaft support. Next make a homemade capacitor out of two flat squares of metal (size to be determined by experiment). Mount horizontally outside (but under a roof or awning), and then mount the spool assembly over the top plate of the capacitor so that most of the glass fibers touch/brush that top plate as the wind spins the spools. Finally wrap the top plate with Saran Wrap (TM) or equivalent. The spinning spools/glass fibers will eventually charge the capacitor. How you bleed off the ‘charges’ is part of our additional prototypes and can’t be related here, of course. The rest is up to you. For additional circuit ideas (spark gaps, zener diodes, inverters, etc.) you can start by googling, say, radiant energy. Perhaps more later.
We have pursued this project to couple with wind turbine technology that has shortcomings such as expense and not working in light breezes. This system should also be coupled with radiant energy systems(again google radiant energy — some of the circuitry is applicable to “bleed” off power to charge batteries) for times of no winds. Once each household on the planet is energy independent, many problems will go away. ( And of course an isolated primitive village, cabin, campsite, outpost, etc. can utilize this easy, economical system. . . .) Our ultimate goal is to duplicate the purported output of the Testikica (Swiss) “free” energy device, a goal we now feel is in reach. Are you “listening” DOE?
Future technologists should take note of the above. There is a potential business here. Also keep in mind that other materials do work. Know your Triboelectric series charts. Keep in mind that a unit with what we call “kickers” can also supplement photovoltaic power system during dark hours. If you can innovate to a 15 kilowatt unit, our eventual goal, you can run an average house.
[Make of the above what you like….or think of them as, I say again, ‘idea-generators.’]
(I might as well repeat an idea [while I’m here] that a far-future development might re-evaluate):
Thinly coat one end of a bar magnet with Bismuth and you will have (on a macro level) a partial-monopole effect. We are refining measurements at this time…. ‘Nuf said.
Comments? ;#)
I have to go to the bathroom.
Seriously, does anyone know where the bathroom is?
And another possibility: If we can convince the planet’s population to hold off urinating for a block of time (let’s say between noon GMT and 3 pm GMT) every day and then let loose at end [3 pm GMT], a significant plume of heat will rise worldwide that until it dissipates will send a daily heat signature message to those pesky aliens out there that we are armed and loaded and ready for action. (Clever persons might also suggest we should harness this collected heat—or not.) [Think of this post as an ‘idea generator.’]
haha
don’t kill me. I think I might be an alien…
There was a short story I read a while ago about this very concept. It starts out from the view of an upright, pretentious mama’s boy complaining about how every morning he sees and hears his neighbor roar down the street in his oldschool musclecar, and remarks how such a thing must surely be illegal- what with the rationing of gas during his time. He goes through all the difficulty of calling the cops who visit his criminal neighbor, only to leave with smile on their faces and laughing. Unable to anything about it, he goes to sleep with plans to move (or soemthing). Switch to the owner of the musclecar in his garage, late at night, cranking up his giant rubber-band powered car. “Why do you do it” his son asks; “Because it gets on the neighbors nerves…” (The roaring engine was just speakers). It might actually part of the fake sci-fi anthology included with Penn & Tellers “Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends.”
Um, no point to that. Like an old satellite, round and with lots of antennas sticking out.
di and good fun missed this one “from back in the day”
Repeat after me: There is no such thing as free energy. There is no such thing as free energy.
To go with the guy who mentioned Testakica, there is a very important fact: capacitors store energy, they never create it. They will only put out what you put in, and even then not all of it (There is no such thing as a perfect capacitor). Any device like Testakica that says you can amplify an existing electric signal without adding extra electricity is fake.
Your wind generator essentially builds up a static charge, I doubt you will achieve much output. The photovoltaics that recently achieved 40% efficiency look to be a more likely choice to go off the grid (when they finally reach the market).
(This is pointed at some of the comments, not the original post.)
I really like the idea of some kind of crank or pedal device to wind a spring up a bit while on the road. Give the wife something to do…
Stop trying to force more efficient vehicles to come out. They will arrive when they are good and ready. That time, of course, is when it is more economical to manufacture the higher efficiency vehicles.
Does it suck? Sure. but thats the way the world works. Gasoline, even with the recent price increases, is still a very cheap and economical energy source. People dont like messing with what works. When gasoline prices climb high enough, there will most definately be a surge in interest in more economical cars.
Sucky car, yet necessary.
The wait for a hybrid that uses hydraulics pretty much the way Alan spelled out is on the way… you can see the proof right here: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/60_mpg_ford_f15.php
For the last decade I had dreams about electric cars powered by flywheels, ever since I read an article in Wired about how a guy named Jack Bitterly, who worked at one time for the Lockheed skunkworks, started a company to produce flywheel storage units to take the place of batteries at a huge weight savings. The carbon-fiber flywheels would have a ferrous metal axle that floated in a magnetic field, and the whole assembly would be in a vacuum container to eliminate air friction. The system was undergoing a long series of spin up/down tests before release when Costner Enterprises (yes, the actor), who had picked up the company a year or two ago, put the kibosh on the whole thing and ended the project. An alternative use for the flywheels in the original article also detailed using them as emergency/supplemental power storage for homes and businesses (solar becomes a better option for cloudy days and nights if you can store your excess power locally without the losses that batteries incur). You can see the original article here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.05/flywheel.html?pg=2&topic=&topic_set=
And there are other ways of getting really great mileage in cars, I just had to look this link up from an old e-mail when I sent it to a friend: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/3374271.html
Basically it talks about how to get cars that get over 100 MPG.
I hate to be this guy, but someone has to ask the tough questions… Why can’t DI put out more than 1-2 articles a week? You’ve got, according to the about section at the top of the page, 9 writers. That means you could assign each writer a day and they are responsible for content on that day with 2 writers who could write stories on the side to fill days in which “the usuals” are unable to get a story done. If your writers can’t produce a single story in 7 days you should start looking for more… get 14 so they only have to write one every two weeks. Something… Really, I want answers. Maybe if I understood WHY DI can’t produce articles, if not every day every other day, I could be a little more sympathetic and understanding. From where I sit right now it looks like poor resource management and/or laziness/uncreativeness on the part of writers. Although I am being a tad critical, it’s only because I enjoy this site, have been here since practically the beginning, and want to see it succeed on an even larger scale. So please, for those of us who check the site daily for updates… please take a moment and let us know what’s up.
I am sorry to say this…but i agree with PresMatt. I adore this site. It is a great site and it has the potential to be THE GREATEST. With a little more work and perhaps a bit of advertising, it would pwn all the other blog sites. Think of this comment as a little push in the right direction :-D
Yes there are many altenatives to replace combustion engines. There are indeed perpetual engines that require only motion to begin the facinating evolution of energy production. Unfortunatley, we live in the real world where mony talks and B.S. walks. Untill we are brought to our knees and can no longer exists without free energy, we will continue to burn fossil fuels till the cows some home!
remember people, oil is NOT a fossil fuel.
compressed air
http://www.theaircar.com/
compressed air is like a big spring, right?
I dunno if it was this guy, but one guy who (a few years ago) tried to get some compressed-air-engine cars manufacturing going got death threats for his trouble.
@PresMatt et. al.
Let’s suppose for a second I own a candy store, (this is pretend, as I don’t own a candy store). I make all the candy in the store myself. I choose to give the candy away for free because I like to do so. However, I only have candy to give away when I feel like making some. Do you, as a receiver of free candy, then demand that I make candy every day so you can feed your sweet tooth? Or, do you accept the free candy when it is given and appreciate how good it is when you get it?
uhhhh….
terry your physicist friend says its a phonomic effect, but could it be a piezoelectric? i have always wondered why not use piezo’s to generate wind power. has anyone ever tried to develop a design using them.?
yeah, i too am starved for more of damn interesting. it is well worth waiting for…. but i’d rather not have to wait so long either. keep up the good work!!!
Reply to Terry.1:
On creating heat witha moving magnetic field and bismuth – there are a bunch of ways to convert kinetic energy into heat – what is better about this one? This is simular to producing heat by running a bunch of electric motors – just really tiny ones!
On the wind power static electricity generator – is that very efficient? Of course, all low-wind speed devices have efficiency problems, but I don’t see how extracting it by static electricity instead of a little generator helps.
On the pseudo-monopole effect – the bismuth is distorting the field lines to make it look like one pole has a much greater “reach” than the other one, right?
On the 3pm urine alien warn-off system – no comment.
Air car? They make it sound amazing, but what about the energy it took to compress the air in the first place? It seems to me like they’re just hiding the source of pollution, rather than eliminating it.
Also, I’m not sure what’s wrong with hydrogen cars. There are a few problems with the fuel cells and whatnot, but it’s a very clean engine, it’s efficient, etc. I think most people are just afraid of hydrogen–stories like the Hindenburg have given it a bad rep. It’s not actually that unstable or easy to ignite. If I were to drop a match in a barrel of hydrogen, it would go out, not blow up. It seems like people should be more afraid of gasoline if they’re so afraid of hydrogen.
how about having an array of springs on the ground that push the vehicle a bit at a time
Creating a more efficient car is not as easy as it seems. The easiest way is to make the car lighter, but crash-worthiness puts a limit on this – and carbon fibre and other advanced light materials are too expensive for ordinary cars. Aerodynamics is pretty advanced for cars – though obviously trucks and SUVs are not very aerodynamic. Engine efficiency needs to be balanced with emisions and power (both lower efficiency). Turning off cylinders is the latest thing, though you still have to pay for the friction of the cylinders not providing power.
Hydrogen is not a viable fuel because it is rare in its natural form and it’s difficult to extract it from compounds, and even more difficult to transport. I have heard lots and lots of ideas to fix this, but have yet to see anything of substance. It’s just not commercially viable. If it were, someone would have done it by now. Getting the government to subsidize it will not help. Ethanol/E85 is also similarly useless.
I guess I should put in my 2 cents about hybrids: They’re crap. (At least the current ones are)
If they were not government subsidized, no one would buy them. The mileage gained does not offset the extra cost to manufacture them, and they are far from environmentally friendly. It amazes me how much environmentalists have been brain-washed to believe otherwise. A Hummer H2 actually has a lower total energy consumption cost over its lifetime than a hybrid. Want to know the car that has the lowest energy cost over its lifetime? A Scion xB. You won’t hear any environmentalists telling you to buy one though.
Gasoline is the best fuel right now. I would love nothing more than to have a viable electric car, but battery technology is the limiting factor here. Environmentalists should be focusing their lobbying power to fund new research into this area, but it seems that they’ve been beaten there already… by portable electronics manufacturers.
It is untrue that hydrogen is rare in its natural form. In fact, how much of the universe if made of it? A buttload (Admittedly, we can’t get inside of stars, though. And they count for alot of it). Hydrogen is very simple to obtain, and very cheap as well.
Ethanol is crap, though, which sucks, because I live in Illinois and it’s everyone’s savior here. It burns more oil to make ethanol than it would if we just used oil.
Yea, this whole conspiracy thing is getting old. I’ve been hearing about it since I was a kid and I’m 46 years old now. “My uncle knew of this guy who built a carburetor that got over 200 MPG, but the oil companies had him killed and destroyed the blueprints”. PLEASE!!! It never ceases to amaze me how gullible people can be!! There is no conspiracy, the oil companies aren’t going to kill you if you come up with an idea to save fuel. Quite the contrary, their oil will still be used, just farther into the future if you come up with a way to be more efficient. It in effect will secure their future.
For instance, if you think for one damn minute that I’m going to give up my NASCAR because you come up with a hybrid car that works you are out of your freaking mind!!! If you think that I’ll park my muscle car because you want to save fuel you are insane, it ain’t gonna happen, not today, not tomorrow. The future of the oil companies is safe, please feel free to invent some perpetual motion device that will allow the world to travel for eons on their own flatulence, I assure the oil companies will not be the reason for your demise!!
Oh yea, before I forget, send me $200 and I’ll tell you how you can withdraw all of the money out of an ATM that you want and it doesn’t come out of your account…
tmansnclar said: “@PresMatt et. al.
Let’s suppose for a second I own a candy store, (this is pretend, as I don’t own a candy store). I make all the candy in the store myself. I choose to give the candy away for free because I like to do so. However, I only have candy to give away when I feel like making some. Do you, as a receiver of free candy, then demand that I make candy every day so you can feed your sweet tooth? Or, do you accept the free candy when it is given and appreciate how good it is when you get it?”
What happens when you make a bad batch of candy then? We’re not allowed to complain because it was free? Can I have more candy if I help you make it myself (e.g. hire more writers out of the community)?
I agree that I’d rather have steak 3 times a week than eat porridge every day. But that’s operating under the assumption that I CANNOT have steak 7 times a week.
I love the site as well and without calling anyone lazy would like to jump on the “More Content Please” bandwagon.
ti83 said: “It is untrue that hydrogen is rare in its natural form. In fact, how much of the universe if made of it? A buttload (Admittedly, we can’t get inside of stars, though. And they count for alot of it). Hydrogen is very simple to obtain, and very cheap as well.”
No, it isn’t. If it were, we’d be using it already. Fuel cells have been around for over 150 years and they’re still not practical. Hydrogen has to be either electrolyzed from water or extracted from a compound. Unbound hydrogen is hard to find on earth despite it being abundant everywhere else in the universe.
For example, let’s take methane. When you extract hydrogen from methane, you are losing about 30% of your stored energy right off the bat. Now put it in a fuel cell. That’s 60% maximum efficiency when generating electricity. So now you’re down to 42% efficiency and you haven’t even moved the car yet, and this is just the car’s efficiency. When you count the extra effort and infrastructure to transport and store hydrogen, your efficiency goes down even farther (Wikipedia quotes a 22% power-plant to wheel efficiency and modern diesels can do 25%). You also have CO2 as a byproduct, so you don’t help the greenhouse gas problem at all (Although I guess since it’s centralized you could store it in a medium).
Basically, you’re switching a new fuel with no real discernible benefits. Your efficiency isn’t that much better, and you’re still generating the same pollution, and you have the added work of switching all the cars over and installing all the infrastructure. If there’s a real benefit to using it, it would be cheaper in the long run and the government wouldn’t need to subsidize it.
There was recently an article in Boing Boing about the Rolamite, the only basic invention of the 20th century. This could well solve the issues of friction in the wind up car, even decreasing the friction in various elements we often consider ‘done deal’ technology, including wheel bearings.
As for Hydrogen, its just switching one fuel for another and it plays right back into the concept of mega-corp. The one nice thing about the electric cars was you could generate your own power to recharge the batteries. What I’d like to see is a rechargeable fuel cell based battery.
As an economist, I find discussions on oil vs. electric fascinating. The physicists/engineers are quick to point out (rightly) that a lot of the claim for “clean” energy is simply a shell game wherein the dirty source is moved upstream (e.g. the electric power plant) and so assumed not to exist. Economists are quick to point out that we remain an oil-based economy because oil is incredibly cheap. In 1967, a gallon of gasoline cost 11/100 of 1% of the average American’s annual take-home pay. Today, that same gallon of gasoline coses 6/100 of 1% of his annual take-home pay. Why spend money investing in new technology when the old one has been getting progressively cheaper over the past 30 years despite significant increases in world consumption? Yes, we’ll eventually run out of oil, but it’s not going to happen over night. Gradually, it will become harder to find new reserves and so the price of oil will rise. Once it rises far enough, entrepreneurs will start spending serious money on alternatives. Meanwhile, why spend money on alternatives now when (a) the existing solution is so cheap, and (b) the longer we wait, the better overall technology will be and so the lower will be the cost of finding viable alternatives.
Relevant data: Statistical Abstract of the US, and Bureau of Labor Statistics (via http://www.economy.com).
To get back to the wind-up car: Seems to me that some years ago I read about buses in–maybe it was Munich?–which ran on giant flywheels, spun up every night. Braking added energy to the flywheel, which was encased in a controlled atmosphere shell. Do they still exist? Did they ever? Seems like I saw the article in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. I thought it was about actual buses, in some quantity, like five or six, rather than just someone’s proposal.
The windup car? Three words come to mind.
Impractical unsafe and ridiculous
Hate to break it to all you Buck Rogers’s fans. Hydrogen is a rope-a-dope. The Hydrogen car has been 15 years away for the last 50 years. And now guess how long “they” say we are away for a marketable affordable Hydrogen car…
15 YEARS !!!!!!
Fly like a butterfly sting like a bee.
The wind up car is even more likely to happen than the Hydrogen car.
Electric is not just moving the pollution to a different place. We can produce electricity with many different sources. The ones that burn “fossil fuels” can be cleaner burning and more efficient that individual cars. Think about it. Regulate one power plant or 100’000 individual cars. As for battery technology. There hasn’t been a real need. If we started using electric cars there would be a need. Look at laptop batteries. Just since the popularly of laptop we have seen many advancements in Battery tec.
James said: “As for battery technology. There hasn’t been a real need. If we started using electric cars there would be a need. Look at laptop batteries. Just since the popularly of laptop we have seen many advancements in Battery tec.”
The battery technologies were around for a long time before laptops were even conceived. The science behind the newest one (Li-ion) has been around for almost a century. It is only recently that it was packaged safely.
The comparison is not fair anyway. Laptops were serving a useful purpose; people were buying them even without batteries and using them. It was only after there was an established market and that the power requirements went down that they started to throw batteries on them.
OK, let’s look at this way. You make an electric car that gets a lower range than a typical gas car, is more expensive, and it takes 8-12 hours to recharge it between drives. Oh, and it’s more damaging to the environment. How many people do you expect to buy it? Do you expect someone to make the battery for you because you made it?
GM did, and no one made anything for them.
stevesearer said: “Hopefully this isn’t a silly question, but couldn’t the spinning of the wheels be harnessed to generate electricity? Sort of like the way a hydroelectric dam generates its power through spinning? Would that make the vehicle [more] inefficient?”
Yes, Allen did say some stuff, but what if there was just a regualr car, with maybe a gear (or something?) Which would turnwith the wheel, and then that gear would turn another “crank” which would then be the “crank” energy as the article stated. Yes, it would be partially putting up the RPM, (Like the A-C, or the radio), however that could also be like the hybrids we have today, and somehow store that energy on a batter from the cranks on the wheels… Well, just wanted to throw out some ideas. =)
SparkyTWP said: “The battery technologies were around for a long time before laptops were even conceived. The science behind the newest one (Li-ion) has been around for almost a century. It is only recently that it was packaged safely.
The comparison is not fair anyway. Laptops were serving a useful purpose; people were buying them even without batteries and using them. It was only after there was an established market and that the power requirements went down that they started to throw batteries on them.
OK, let’s look at this way. You make an electric car that gets a lower range than a typical gas car, is more expensive, and it takes 8-12 hours to recharge it between drives. Oh, and it’s more damaging to the environment. How many people do you expect to buy it? Do you expect someone to make the battery for you because you made it?
GM did, and no one made anything for them.”
No I don’t but on the other hand yes I do. Are you trying to say we have made no improvements to batteries in the last century? Just in the short time the GM electric was “on the market” (which it really never was but that’s another discussion) the range almost doubled and in the years since there are electric cars that will go 200 miles on a charge and out perform most gasoline cars. As for polluting more than gas how do you figure? It’s nice to drop a statement like that with out explaining it, maybe people will actually believe it. And if you don’t like Laptop analogy how about cell phones, or cordless drills and other tools. Longer life, faster charging and less expensive is the trend. Maybe they just made them crappy in the beginning to get you to buy new improved ones later. And the reasons they are more expensive is obvious. Ever heard of economy of scale? Most families are two car Families. Are you saying that they or I should say we need two cars that will go 300-400 mile between fill ups?
But rather or not Electric cars are the answer I know Hydrogen is not. Not for a LONG LONG LONG LONG time. At least not in our life time without a major breakthrough that is. Like I said I would put my money on the Wind up car before the Hydrogen fantasy. And the wind up car is pure nonsense. Funny but nonsence
SparkyTWP said: “
Basically, you’re switching a new fuel with no real discernible benefits. Your efficiency isn’t that much better, and you’re still generating the same pollution, and you have the added work of switching all the cars over and installing all the infrastructure. If there’s a real benefit to using it, it would be cheaper in the long run and the government wouldn’t need to subsidize it.”
In Case you didn’t know, our government does Subsidize Gasoline and Oil companies. I’m not saying I’m just saying. And Electric would be cheaper in the long run if you take into account peoples and the plants health and the bill associated with fixing them. Not to mention it would just be cheaper in he long run with out taking that into effect. Oil will run out and before it does it will get harder and harder the get to and refine. Not to mention the politics of oil. I just saying that Oil is not the way to go in the long run or even the short run. The sooner we can lower our need for it the better. I am no tree huger (believe me) but I do understand the need to cut back significantly on oil. At least Allen is trying to come up with something however misguided (sorry Allen but if you don’t ask I guess you’ll always wonder). Unlike some people just going along saying everything is fine just use oil till it used up or we have WWIII over it. No problem….
Wind-up Car? LOL, isn’t it one of those Jump to conclusion of pet rock ideas from Office Space?
tmansnclar said: “@PresMatt et. al.
Let’s suppose for a second I own a candy store, (this is pretend, as I don’t own a candy store). I make all the candy in the store myself. I choose to give the candy away for free because I like to do so. However, I only have candy to give away when I feel like making some. Do you, as a receiver of free candy, then demand that I make candy every day so you can feed your sweet tooth? Or, do you accept the free candy when it is given and appreciate how good it is when you get it?”
I see your point, but if the candy is good I’d be willing to “pay” for it… and by pay I mean have DI put up a few banner ads or even a popup when you click “read more.” As long as they aren’t greedy and put up hundreds of banner ads and thousands of popups I’d be extremely happy to deal with it to get a little more content. Also, it isn’t just one candymaker… there are 9 candymakers giving away candy. Again, I’m not being negative in any way and I LOVE the “candy” I get here at DI. I just wish I could get more, even if it is at a slight cost. Also, I’ve noticed that most of the updates as of late have come from the Bellows brothers (8 of the last 10, most of which coming from Alan). Where are the other authors? Are they not producing content or is their content just not DI worthy?
The most sensible, practical solution to getting less pollution and less reliance on foreign oil is to get more nuclear plants on line. Cheaper electricity and rising oil prices might convince car buyers to buy an electric car that can be charged off the mains.
AntEconomist said: “As an economist, I find discussions on oil vs. electric fascinating. The physicists/engineers are quick to point out (rightly) that a lot of the claim for “clean” energy is simply a shell game wherein the dirty source is moved upstream (e.g. the electric power plant) and so assumed not to exist. Economists are quick to point out that we remain an oil-based economy because oil is incredibly cheap. In 1967, a gallon of gasoline cost 11/100 of 1% of the average American’s annual take-home pay. Today, that same gallon of gasoline coses 6/100 of 1% of his annual take-home pay. Why spend money investing in new technology when the old one has been getting progressively cheaper over the past 30 years despite significant increases in world consumption? Yes, we’ll eventually run out of oil, but it’s not going to happen over night. Gradually, it will become harder to find new reserves and so the price of oil will rise. Once it rises far enough, entrepreneurs will start spending serious money on alternatives. Meanwhile, why spend money on alternatives now when (a) the existing solution is so cheap, and (b) the longer we wait, the better overall technology will be and so the lower will be the cost of finding viable alternatives.
Relevant data: Statistical Abstract of the US, and Bureau of Labor Statistics (via http://www.economy.com).”
Thank you.
Better yet…instead of large batteries in your electric car install small ones or use the wind up spring to get it moving then have an electric grid embedded in the road. Once you have relative motion between the car and road you can transfer power between the 2. Have a meter on the car (or prepay the electric company) to measure how much power you use. Of course we will need to go nuclear so the earth is warming crowd will buy into it…me I am ok with burning coal (no I am not anti-nuke, I am strongly pro-nuke, it’s just quicker to build a coal burner). But we need to do something to get us energy independant (solar and wind will never get us there, and I can only conserve so much).
I hear James saying that hydrogen cars are perpetually 15 years away… the last estimate I heard from BMW was just under 2, and it might just be the wording of the article but I think it can also run on gasoline when needed. You can read it here: http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/09/08/bmw-begins-testing-hydrogen-combustion-7-series/
And GM has the prototype running for their hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle. The power plant for the car actually powers the research lab where the systems are being developed! You can read about it here:
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index.html
and a video of it being driven early this year (I think it was this year, maybe last) by a journalist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQdFmaUiciM
I love the way you can change the car around by getting a new top for it… sports car, pick-up, mini-van. You get all three in one!
The arguments about just moving the source of pollution upstream don’t entirely hold water – a commercial power plant produces power with a much higher efficiency than any automobile engine, and when that is augmented with all the other “clean” sources of power (wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, hydroelectric, etc) you end up with a much lower amount of pollution. And this week they announced the development of solar cells that have jumped from 28 to 40% efficiency.
One of the best parts about using hydrogen for fuel is that it will not necessarily need to be transported in its volatile form (in event of a leak or rupture of a tanker truck). Electricity and water can be delivered safely everywhere right now… so service stations would only have to perform the electrolysis on-premises and store it there. As long as they have the most efficient equipment possible it is very doable (and they have a great incentive to keep the equipment as efficient as possible and running right – it directly affects their profit margin!)
Drakvil said:
The arguments about just moving the source of pollution upstream don’t entirely hold water – a commercial power plant produces power with a much higher efficiency than any automobile engine, and when that is augmented with all the other “clean” sources of power (wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, hydroelectric, etc) you end up with a much lower amount of pollution.
Not really.. You may gain a bit of efficiency, but not much. This is because of the extra steps which introduce innefficiencies. While the power plant may be cleaner and more efficient than a car, the power then has to be transferred. The electrolysis process is by no means 100% efficient. A quick check on wiki says 50-70% efficiency on the electrolysis process, which is no small matter. And then you have the problem of distribution.. infrastructure for transporting hydrogen is virtually nonexistant and would have to be created from the ground up. Your idea of local production would require thousands upon thousands of electrolysis units to be built, with all the additional hassles that implies(Installation, training operators, maintenance, repair). Oh, and if we made all this hydrogen purely with nuclear power, we would have to triple the amount of reactors in the US.
Its not impossible to do, but there are a LOT of hurdles to overcome before the process could be anywhere close to gasolines current efficiency.
I do like the sound of that 40% efficient solar panel though. Wonder how much it costs..
There is an assumption here that all nine writers work full-time, and this is the only job they have. I feel differently. Based on the volume of writing coming from a very few of the writers on the letterhead, I would imagine that most of the writers are “guest” writers. Subsequently, (as the candymaker and candy shop owner), I don’t want to charge for my services. I enjoy giving it away for free. Think of it in another way, to the steak analogy offered by Techno-Kid. We aren’t being offered steak every day. No one said you could have steak every day. The DI restaurant simply offers good food at no cost to you. So do you get a right to complain if the food is bad? Yes. Do you get a right to complain if the food isn’t there when YOU say it should be there? No. As a guest in someone else’s house you do not get to tell them what to serve you and when they should serve it. Granted the host should offer appetizers and drinks and serve the food in a reasonable amount of time, but we would be ungracious guests if we demanded everything on our own terms.
Anyway, enough ranting. How about a water powered car? It is common science that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, and that electrolysis of water will break apart these elements. Hydrogen and oxygen are highly flammable. I would love a car that ran on water.
I think Fred Flinstone has a great idea with the foot-powered car. Cuz if you watch him, he only does the foot thing at the very beginning. Then the car runs almost indefinitely. I think it works something like this
1. Fred eats dino-burger.
2. Fred converts dino-burger into foot power.
The only thing is when he orders the big dino-ribs and it makes his car tip over. That’s a safety concern. But I think you could overcome that by having a balancing set of dino-ribs on the other side of the car. You’d just have to make sure they were placed on the car at the same time.
Drakvil said: “I hear James saying that hydrogen cars are perpetually 15 years away… the last estimate I heard from BMW was just under 2, and it might just be the wording of the article but I think it can also run on gasoline when needed. You can read it here: http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/09/08/bmw-begins-testing-hydrogen-combustion-7-series/
And GM has the prototype running for their hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle. The power plant for the car actually powers the research lab where the systems are being developed! You can read about it here:
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index.html
and a video of it being driven early this year (I think it was this year, maybe last) by a journalist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQdFmaUiciM
One of the best parts about using hydrogen for fuel is that it will not necessarily need to be transported in its volatile form (in event of a leak or rupture of a tanker truck). Electricity and water can be delivered safely everywhere right now… so service stations would only have to perform the electrolysis on-premises and store it there. As long as they have the most efficient equipment possible it is very doable (and they have a great incentive to keep the equipment as efficient as possible and running right – it directly affects their profit margin!)”
Yes we all know the wonders of fuel cell cars. Many Auto Companies have a working prototype or even, in Hondas case, a marketable model (ha ha ha) for municipal customers’ only. Do I smell publicity stunt. Doesn’t Arnold drive a Hydrogen Hummer? Maybe not. The problem is they cost about One Million dollars a piece and are very unreliable and have a range that is smaller then even a home converted kit electric conversion. Not to mention we would have completely restructure the entire energy distribution network across the entire country. Build Hydrogen refueling stations. And figure out how to produce, compress and store hydrogen cost and entry efficiently. And on and on. I know that it is a tempting dream silver bullet but apparently you don’t understand the technical and logistic hurtles that have to be overcome. The politicians have do a terrific job of misrepresenting(or just strait up misunderstanding themselves) the scientists on this one in order to make up believe the Hydrogen economy is just around the corner. The science is not there (hydrogen production, delivery, compression, and effective storage) the infrastructure is not there (hydrogen production facilities, delivery pipelines, and power plants to produce it.) nor will it be anytime soon. I assure you that is not just around the corner. NO mater how much you want it to be.
I would not suggest that anybody stop working on it but I just want the public to be more realistic about it and stop holding their collective breath and open there eyes to other viable options we have available to us right now, (electric, compress natural gas and like I said even the wind up as fewer technical and logistical hurdles) not the year 2100
I agree with cutterjohn. The key is in the efficiency of generating the power at the lowest cost. However, it’s also in the convenience as in “I want it now”. Nothing to date can supersede gasoline for efficiency or convenience and cost. Unfortunately, the cost includes transportation and storage in addition to the production of whatever form of fuel to be consumed. A little history before I make my point.
Starting in the 1950’s a part of the government funded projects included the installation of a buried network of pipes for the distribution of heating and fuel oil, which later included natural gas. This network is one reason the cost of refined oil is so low in the US compared to foreign markets where gas needs to be distributed by other means. In addition this network allows the refined oil to be transferred and stored at various stations across the country. The only other resource that meets this level of distribution is electricity, with the exception of storage capability. Contrary to popular belief the sub-station in your backyard is not a generating plant or battery, it is a method of stepping up or down the voltage to provide for distribution.
Electricity by itself failed because the American mentality wants satisfaction now not wait six hours to drive another 100 miles. Hydrogen and other alternative fuels, don’t have this means of distribution, let alone storage, yet. The one saving grace for Hydrogen is that nearly 90 percent of the production of hydrogen in the US is from Natural Gas. (Sorry to burst the electrolysis bubble, but Steam Reformation is more than 75 percent efficient with natural gas.) This means you could put a Hydrogen plant near a Natural Gas line and serve up a community. In addition, some companies are developing miniature hydrogen generators that could be connected to a residential Natural Gas service, which could charge your Hydrogen powered car in a few minutes while it sits in the driveway.
Not everyone is on board for alternative fuels, because their sitting in the background waiting to see which will ultimately compare with gasoline. It will take time for a product to come along that is efficient and satisfies the convenience of the end user. Until then a wind up car isn’t that far out of reach.
I think the answer is fairly strait forward. It will take a multitude of alternatives to lower our dependency on oil. True not everyone can be limited to driving the current 200 miles a day (not 100) that electric cars offer. I mean that would only meet 95% of peoples driving needs. But like I said before a two car family needs one electric and one gas or gas hybrid (which are highly over rated, mechanically completed and a bit of a stunt as well but I will not go into that right now) and maybe in 70 or 80 years they can have two hydrogen fuel cell cars or some other combination. It is not necessary all or nothing. My point is that if we put half as much time and money into better battery tec better charging tec (I have a De Walt drill that can completely charge its battery in 15 20 minutes) and better power usage in electric cars, Hydrogen would never catch up. It is already light years behind and for some reason is being touted and the cure to what ills us. Electric car technology is working now not in some distant future never never land and it could easy fill the needs of the majority of drivers if automakers and the public would be willing take it seriously. It is my option that they would, but it that is hard to do when you have Hydrogen propagandists making overly optimistic statements and I dare the say telling us outright lies about the utopia of the fuel cell and how it is coming to a dealership near you very soon.
Perhaps there has been an improvment in the water car scenario: see: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800
Alright, this will be a long post so I apologize ahead of time.
1. I should explain the “electric cars damaging to the environment” part. The more something costs to produce, the more resources/environmental impact it has, whether from raw materials/energy usage/whatever. So a car that costs 1.5x more to produce than another car has a larger impact on the environment (Please note that I said “cost to produce”, not actual cost that consumer pays). An electric car is incredibly costly to produce because of its batteries. A Li-ion battery pack that has about the same energy density as a tank of gas costs about $30k. And even worse, it will be dead in 5 years and you’ll have to spend another $30k to get another. Li-ion is incredibly hazardous to the environment and requires special procedures to dispose of properly, not counting the impact just from making it. Gasoline is so cheap and comparatively easy to get that Li-ion doesn’t even stand a chance from an environmental or even practical aspect. Other current battery technologies suffer similar problems.
2. Oil/gasoline will not be running out anytime soon. The traditional sources (Oil wells) are indeed starting to hit their production peak, but the non-conventional sources (Tar sand) are now economical because the prices are high enough to make money out of it. These non-conventional sources are vast and will last decades even when given exponential demand for it. This also does not take into account other non-conventional sources that are not yet economical, but will be when the price gets high enough. Basically, prices for gasoline are not going to increase dramatically anytime soon. When gas gets expensive enough that other technologies (Electric/steam/whatever) are profitable, then everyone will naturally switch over. There is no government involvement needed.
3. I do not support any subsidization of oil/gas/hybrid/electric/ethanol technology/companies. The free market is the best way to decide what is best. The only thing I support is the government funding research to get the ball rolling.
Are you trying to say we have made no improvements to batteries in the last century? Just in the short time the GM electric was “on the market” (which it really never was but that’s another discussion) the range almost doubled and in the years since there are electric cars that will go 200 miles on a charge and out perform most gasoline cars.
No, you are correct in saying that portable electronics have spurred developments, but I’m just saying that it’s not a simple “Create X and Y will follow”. It’s more of a feedback process. Portables spurred battery makers to improve, and vice versa. While the improvements to the EV-1 were impressive, it still wasn’t competitive. It was a very successful research program though. GM would have certainly sold it otherwise, or if GM was making a mistake, another company would have stepped in. Heck, gas prices are 4x in Europe than what they are here and even they don’t use electric. There’s just no need for it now.
BTW, I am in favor of research into the area as new technology should still be looked into, but barring any huge breakthrough in energy storage/gas prices, it won’t be commercially viable anytime soon. Electric has the power (No pun intended) to be the best “fuel” available as it can be generating by several different means and converted just as easily. It can be also be generated more efficiently and power plants have emissions that are a lot easier to regulate due to being centralized. But I have to be realistic when asking why it isn’t available, or why it currently isn’t as good for the environment as everybody thinks it is, and I hope the above explanations help you understand why as well.
Wow, that was long. Flame away!
you all suck we should rided spaceships!!!!!!!!!
ps. i’m not tard i special
zsdjfkl;dj vlm,sdjgkl;dfmhkl;sef ,.smefjghn o’serk gl/serjkg’efhm;se orisdlfgj’seopghkselkjh’erg kmae ;fi oguafl;bja’fgokagjkl’fo pgbkae’gjk’glkaf/lgj’RGOk/gljks’goks/lfgj’pgkl; ‘kjgog dkg egj keio;g ‘klg oprgel gr ekgjsp’eljslekkg/skjg;lb bergjd’gmjerogk;lrtgk’aerlpgk,sdklrjh’gdklfhik’seryl,earl;hdf'[hleflkh’f;hg;/lh
eflgjk’efhkfklgj’p[ghk;s
ktigh’stgm;kosfkh’a
fgjspofgjfg
rmgkofg’ljegopksfgokfgk mgoajkgklsrj;iokjgko;augomgiuiogmawiotuigja
arjgaopwergawouig’oprjsf’opasfjkglkaefggjm;ofg/lkgj;regkklsrgj;kmg;ioserjkhl
/kejgkgkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
kkkkklkeguerkgj[awgnjse’rl;jdjha’:SFhl,w’e
Rgh;
werklgjse
thlks
r[h;lEL:hkrljhsrtl;khopeyk/aleih’;zl,gk[0oprlgmiery’skuio]
sermg,j[r;’
g
ldgmkasdlgnaskgmadrkl/gmAdf .mer’g
klfjaelfj:”SGlaenrg
e,gkliserk’vl;jse’
g]’efgjmasejglm,dnglpermg.;efmgjker’g
rg
I’m sorry but I think your just plain wrong on this. First just because something costs more money to produce does not mean it has a larger impact on the environment. That is just flawed logic or rather no logic. That just makes no sense at all. Where would you get that idea? Next the batteries are really the only technical hurtle that stands in the way of electric cars unlike most that have many. And yes build X and Y will follow. That is how it works. You build a PS 3 and Game companies make games that push the limit. You start broadcasting in HDTV companies put other companies put R&D into taking full advantage of it. People start using the internet and private companies begin to find ways to provide faster connections.
Oil is not going to run out soon but the cost to get it is going to clime. Dependency on foreign oil cost taxpayers billions. Cleaning up the environment health problems like increased occurrence of asima. And do you think we would have anything to do with the Middle East if they didn’t have all (or the majority of) the easily assessable oil. You think that has no cost think again. You either have not thought about it or you do support subsidizing oil. Which is it? Yes there is a need for it now. I want cleaner air now and cleaner water now and not as much fighting over foreign resources now. Not 50 years for now when they finally figure out the stupid Hydrogen thing.
I know that it’s hard to make a change. It takes innovation and bravery. But it is something we are going to have to do. And just because they are not doing it in Europe (and by the way they are in greater numbers than here) that means nothing. Yes gas is higher priced there but that is due to Taxes. There electricity is more expensive as well. And to be honest I don’t take my lead from Europe . They can do what they want. I do not use them a measuring stick nor I would guess will I ever. I think we in the USA have proven time and time again to be innovators not followers. We do not need Europeans stamp of approval. No offence meant by this.
James, could you provide your email address as I’d like to provide my reasoning/evidence but I don’t want to hijack this topic.
Let me first say I love muscle cars and I believe that most environmental efforts are more for political gain rather than changing our environment for the good of all. I believe that our dependence on foreign oil is the most important issue of our time. We need to stop financing rogue regimes and put the money into our economy in the form of wind, solar, nuclear, coal or whatever alternative energy source that provides independence from hostile countries. I am realistic and understand that anything this big will take time to change, but I believe that our best chance is electric vehicles because we have the infrastructure to transport the power already, we just need to improve the grid and add more nuclear plants. The improvements and cost reductions in power storage will come, and we cannot forget the environmental impact of millions of used batteries down the road. This means that we will need innovative thinking and government funding to encourage research, but the funding will pay off in energy dependence and future savings.
Question to all the folks talking about flywheels.
How do you account for the angular momentum? With any useful amount of energy storage, the moment of inertia is going to be huge. If the wheel is mounted vertically, then the vehical can’t turn. If it’s mounted horizontally, then it can’t go up or down hills. Or do they have some sort of swivel that allows the wheel to maintain position?
If you take a look at the historic development of the motorcar, you’ll see that in the 1800’s electric vehicles where quite common, and that they faced about the same problems as electrics do today. In fact the progress in electric technology in vehicles from the 1800’s to today, is almost non existant! The battery’s have only managed a very small % level of progression, and thats about it! For electrics cars to become at all viable in the future, there needs to be some kind of paradigm shift, or atleast a BIG leap forward in technology. And that hasn’t happened for the last 120 years atleast.
As for the range of the electric vehicles and their need for hours of recharging on a “fill-up”, that could very easily be overcome by rather switching out the whole battery pack with a fully charged one at the “refill stations”. It would need to be a standardized setup in means of size and ease of acces of course, but these are very small obstacles compared to developing a battery that charges fully in matter of minutes.
Hydrogen won’t solve the CO2 and global warming problem at all though, only reduce it some, and because of that any hydrogen technology would only be something that would be around until a really NO polluting technology exists.
The flywheel and compressed spring/windup technology, has it’s merits, but only as a energy savings device, not as the basic technology for transportation at all. So it’s kind of a moot point.
Seems the greatest leaps forward could be made by new technology in electric energy production. As for the later use of it, a car could either be electric, or use compressed air, or a windup spring or whatever, but fueled by electricity. Even nuclear waste could more easily be taken care of buried in underground storage than the whole CO2 issue and global warming.
But I believe that basicly, we should also consider the benefits of living it cities more like the medievil ones, where you live close or within the city centre, with walking distance to whatever you need. Such a way of living would be the most viable in the long run, and don’t really have any huge nagative sides to it. Well, exept rising property prices perhaps. There’s still alot of villages and small city’s like this around, and living like this isn’t really a problem at all. I do so myself currently. I used to live in a suburbian area with the need to drive to everything before, but now it’s shorter to walk from my apartment to my job’s front door, than it is to walk from the parking lot to the same door. Grocery store, same deal. I have a café in the first floor, hairdresser 100 yards up the road. city centre mall a nine minute walk. Ok, so I drive a little, even have two cars, but mostly for big shopping or the like.
But my point is, it’s not a bad way of living at all, all the time you save from not having to drive, is a big plus also. And thats coming from a person who actually like to drive.
tilstad said: “If you take a look at the historic development of the motorcar, you’ll see that in the 1800’s electric vehicles where quite common, and that they faced about the same problems as electrics do today. In fact the progress in electric technology in vehicles from the 1800’s to today, is almost non existant! The battery’s have only managed a very small % level of progression, and thats about it! For electrics cars to become at all viable in the future, there needs to be some kind of paradigm shift, or atleast a BIG leap forward in technology. And that hasn’t happened for the last 120 years atleast.
As for the range of the electric vehicles and their need for hours of recharging on a “fill-up”, ………
But I believe that basicly, we should also consider the benefits of living it cities more like the medievil ones, where you live close or within the city centre, with walking distance to whatever you need. Such a way of living would be the most viable in the long run, and don’t really have any huge nagative sides to it. Well, exept rising property prices perhaps. ……. Grocery store, same deal. I have a café in the first floor, hairdresser 100 yards up the road. city centre mall a nine minute walk. Ok, so I drive a little, even have two cars, but mostly for big shopping or the like.
But my point is, it’s not a bad way of living at all, all the time you save from not having to drive, is a big plus also. And thats coming from a person who actually like to drive.”
If you think we have made not any or only tiny advances in battery and electric car Tec in the 100 plus years maybe you should walk down to the library and do some research. Unless you consider 30 to 200 plus mile range a tiny % increase or 35MPH to 150mph top speed a small advancement. The list could go on. If you do you, Then have a point. Not everybody need so go over two hundred miles a day.
And living near your work and everything you need is great if you make enough money to live downtown but many people don’t. Or try finding two people good paying jobs in their respective field’s close enough for them both to walk to. I know my fiancée walks but I have a 15 mile commute. It’s a nice idea, true and I would love if it was workable for everybody, but it’s not. True more people could make an effort to live closer to work I will give you that.
I do agree with you completely regarding Fairy Gas (hydrogen) Maybe if we lived in never never land it would more realistic.
It’s true that the basic performance of cars have increased greatly for electric vehicles from 1835 until now, but so has the performance of the steam and gasoline powered vehicles. The gap between them though, haven’t deminished much, if any at all.
From the mid 1800’s until early 1900’s electric powered vehicles where quite abundant (in prosentage of all engine powered vehicles) compared to what they are now.
As for the speed, they managed to brake the 60 mph barrier with electric vehicles back in 1899. Although the “Baker Electric” from the early 1900’s, which outsold gasoline powered cars at the time, only had a topspeed of about 20 mph, while the Ford model T has a top speed of 45 mph. How fast would you say that the average top speed needed would be in manhattan traffick today?
My point here really is that alot of the world is still hoping there will be some kind of magic formula that will give us cars that use way less gas, electric cars that will be as cheap as gasoline powered cars, and other magic formulas to solve all our transportation problems.
Hell, just look at the gas milage question; Today a “normal” family car would be considered to have good milage if it’s in the 24-28 mpg range. (The US fleet average is 23 miles per gallon.) What was the milage of the Ford model T? 25-30 mpg!! … Where’s the progress? Ok, I admit there’s SOME progress in the overall achievement of what a car can do, but we are all kidding ourselves if we believe there’s a magic formula just around the corner!
Want a cheap and conventinal 47 mpg vehicle? Ok, you can have my old european (GM made) 1959 Opel Olympia 6 seater sedan, 1.5 litre gasoline engine, 45 hp and three speed on the coloumn. Top speed about 70-80 mph. Where’s the progress from that to today’s cars? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Rekord#Opel_Rekord_P_I_.28July_1957-July_1960.29
First electric car 1832, Robert Anderson.
Baker electric, 1899-1915 The first publicly sold electric car, 25 mph, 50 miles range.
Detroit Electric, 1907-39 25 mph, 80 miles (typical) to 211 miles range.
Henney Kilowatt, 1958-60, 60 mph, with a range of over 60 miles.
General Motors, 1996-2003, EV1, 80 mph, 55 to 75 miles range.
Honda EVplus, 1997-1999, 80+ mph , 80–110 mile range .
Citroen Berlingo, 1998-2005, 65+ mph , 40-60 mile range.
Th!nk city, 1999-2006, 56 mph, 52 mile range.
You start seeing a pattern here? There is a limit to what feasable range you can get out of an electric vehicle, since the more batteries you use, the more it weighs, and the more power it consumes to move that weight. So without going into detail of battery technology here, it’s safe to say that the stored energy to weight ratio in battery technology hasn’t evolved alot at all. Atleast, it has barely kept up with the demand put on such a battery as the car itself has evolved. In addition, the electrics of today is just as much slower as contemporary vehicles, as the old electrics where compared to gasoline back in the early 1900’s. No big difference there either.
Sure, you can make an electric vehicle plenty fast, but then you loose range. And vice verca. Li-ion battry’s is great, no doubt about it. But would really even MORE expensive battery technology help out the electric vehicle? I don’t thinks so… Even without Li-ion, my country’s production of “Th!nk” gives you a car who only seats 2 people, has the finish of a garbage can( literally, it’s recycled, cast unpainted plastic) , battery’s that last 5-8 years, and for the price of 2 brand new chevrolet malibus. Who in their right minds would buy one? And that economical, and practical offset compared to the gasooline powered vehicle, is exactly as it was when the Ford model T’s came to life. Read up on it, and you’ll see just how similar the differences are today as they where then, it’s shocking.
And developing a new battery that has 30% better storage capability, or 25% faster recharging, or whatever, won’t help! It would need to have in the neighbourhood of 4000% better storage capability, 6000% faster charging, and 500% less weight, before any electric vehicle would be a REAL competitor to the internal combustion engined car. And what I’m saying is, that thats HIGHLY unlikely to happen anytime soon… Small improvements to Li-ion battery’s just won’t do. It would have to be HUGE improvements before this ever gets feasable. They were hoping for the exact same things back in 1832. Never happened, and a “few more years” won’t make it happen either.
As for the living arrangements, I’m not rich, in fact this is less expensive than the house I used to have, I just live on smaller space. In addition I save alot on the fuel I don’t use, and if you consider time to be money, that aswell.
First things first I have not am not or will not imply that I would push for the replacement of the internal combustion engine powered by either petroleum or some bio product. Truly a small portion of the population needs the range and quick recharging (fill up) they provide. And a large segment will not be accepting anything else for some time (Most are afraid of Bio Fuel). Not to mention the infrastructure we have invested in them and the total collapse of world stability (such as it is) a sudden drop in use of oil would cause. As well as we couldn’t make it happen with all the will in the world. With that said. Here we go again.
I wont take the time to look up every number that you put out there as “fact” but I know some are inaccurate for example the last version of EV1 got up to 150mile range. Home built kit electric conversions are getting about 200 miles on a charge. A new comply Tesla motors are getting about 250 miles a charge with a 0 to 60 in about 4.5 sec (also a $100’000 price tag) So you can cherry-pick (or ignore) stats to prove your point but you are implying it is imposable or at least not really feasible with current tech to make an electric car practical. That implication is not true. The price is high but like any low production new tech you would expect that to drop to a more reasonable level. Remember $1000 microwaves now $59.
“It would need to have in the neighbourhood of 4000% better storage capability, 6000% faster charging, and 500% less weight, before any electric vehicle would be a REAL competitor to the internal combustion engined car”
If you say it is true? That is ridiculous. So let’s see according to you an Electric car should have the following to be effective: Range 800’000 miles per charge, Charge in under a minute and the battery should weigh less than 2lbs. Yes we all need to be able to circle the earth 32 times on a charge. Really they don’t have to make them better, the best of the best electric cars (see the Tesla) are able to perform far above 98% of drivers needs they are just not available and not cheap enough.
As for Family cars that get 23 mpg I agree ridiculous. But that is not because the technology is not there. It is because of individual choices that consumers make as well as the lack of courage in the congress to slap the auto industry in the face and say WTF! Again an inaccurate implication. You are attempting to imply that that’s the best current technology can make.
How often do you drive more than 250 miles in a day? If your marred could and have two cars, could one be an electric that only can drive 100 mile on a charge. I would suggest that the answer would be yes in most American’s case. You are right there is no magic bullets on the horizon but a mix of technology could help the situation.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
The “facts” is mostly from wikipedia. As for the EV1, I agree I took the number from the “regular” lead-acid batteries, not the second edition nickel metal hydride ones. The batteries with the 150 mile range, had it’s own set of problems; even longer charging time, the need to aircondition it to get rid of the heat etc. And added price on top an already stiff price to begin with.
Yes, it is indeed very possible to get a 200 or 300 mile range out of an electric vehicle. But you have to look at how a vehicle is really used; Most use their vehicle for commuting, shopping, and other everyday driving, lets just say X miles. The other kind of driving is the other more seldom occurrences, like visiting grandmother in the next state, summer trip down to your grand parents in Florida etc.
It’s this Y driving the electric vehicle can’t do. It does the X, but not X+Y. And lets face it, it’s this ability to take you to wherever, which gives people the freedom they feel their gasoline automobile gives them. And people aren’t looking to give that up anytime soon.
So to cover your (freedom) Y driving needs, you’d need a second car. And if the electric car isn’t as cheap, as to allow you to own a second (cheap) car, it’s not economicly feasable. Ok, so lets just charge the electric vehicle and go on a multi state trip with that then. Yes…Um… that’s the whole problem, isn’t it…? Since the EV1 took over 8 hours to charge, that trip will certainly take a looong time now, wouldn’t it?
“What? Can it only go around town? The city bus/tram/subway/taxi does that, why do I need a car for that?” “And only two seats?!?!”
If it’s ever going to feasable to use an electric car for longer trips than just local commuting, you’d need a battery that will charge in a matter of minutes, not hours. And thats pretty far way off into the future. Most likely it won’t involve battery’s as we know it at all, but thats really my point, it would have to be a MAJOR leap forward in technology, battery’s just won’t do.
Even in the Tesla case, you need 4 hour charging time. 2 if you have only driven it for 100 miles. I’d like to see the size of those electric “gas stations” where you need to hang around for 4 hours waiting to go on with your journey.
Alright, my 4000% number where exaggerated to make a point, (it would make for 2240 miles range, not 800 000 in the Th!ink’s case btw ), but the reality is most folks like to take those longer trips a few times a year, and they really appreciate the ability of the gasoline powered car to do that. But either you make a battery be able to charge in minutes, OR, you’d have to be able to cover such distances on one charge. ( I believe that about 20 minutes charge time is what would be the breaking point for people to really start considering an electric as a replacement for a gas vehicle. )None seem feasable at all. THe only probable way it can happen is if you just swap out the whole battery pack at the “refill station”.
Although the Tesla car does indeed have more range than the EV1 and other electric’s, it’s still hampered by the exact same things as electrics has always been; Price, charge times, and unability to be your only car. And when you still need to have a second car to be able to do all of those things(X+Y driving), why not just forget the electric to begin with then? Which of course has been the answer from the masses for over a century, and is still very much viable.
Now if you do that, (swap battery packs), and make the price of the cars and battery’s themselves come down, you have a feasable product. Or just store the energy in a different way alltogether.
But yes, surely one of my two cars could be an electric car. But it isn’t, because their too pricey, and I drive very few miles a year, so I would not get a good use of the battery pack at all before it needs replacing. If I still lived in my suburbian home, I could drive to work, and I really thought hard about getting one back then. But then I figured when I needed to drive to my gf who lived way on the opposite side of the town, I would only be able to go to her, not back home in the same day, even if it was only a one hour drive each way. (Th!nk’s 56 mile range) But then again, one of my cars is an older VW camping vehicle, which I occationly do rather long drives with when I first do them. Last time was all the way to the North Cape. (1033 miles x2)And no, I don’t think the electric vehicle would work for that at all. Not by a long shot, even if it was the Tesla version. Other things I use it for is hauling stuff, when moving, getting a sofa, or materials for a home project or whatever. And no, there don’t seem to be a good electric vehicle for that either.
My first car is a muscle car, big hairy V8, comfy 4 seater. I use it for cross country driving (to parents), if not the VW, shopping groceries, street legal dragracing, summer/holiday trips, here and abroad, going to the cinema etc. Can’t see there’s any good electric vehicle to be able to do that either, exept for getting groceries. But then again, I can just walk to the closest shop, so I don’t really need it for that when it comes down to it.
To my parents, which I’m going this christmas, it’s about 300 miles, one way. I try to go 2-4 times a year, but I’ve done it alot more the past year. Sure, I could take the bus, or a plane, but driving your own car gives you freedom. Freedom to haul whatever you want with you, drive when you want etc. And given the recent tightning of airport security around the world, plus the need to travel to and from airports, it only takes me 1 hour and 20 minutes longer from door to door.
People want their car to cover ALL their transportation needs, not just some of them.
Again the only “real” obstacle you have made is the Price. You stated you could not make the trip to your GF in the TH!nk. The Th!nk is inadequate for even medium range trips. Better electric options would have worked just fine. (Were they affordable and available) You also stated your other objections were trips to your parent home. Again you have two cars if one was a gasoline powered you could make those trip with that, and all the other “freedom trips” moving sofa’s…I know in my case there has not been one time in three years that my family has needed two cars that would travel over 100 miles in one day at the same time. I know many couples and families in the same situation. If you have the desire to have two gasoline cars, one for racing and camping or whatever and one for driving around town that is fine. I, for the third or forth time, don’t advocate forcing any change in your or anyone else’s driving habits. I am only saying that for me and many others (if the price was right) it would be a great and preferable option. I don’t need two cars that have an unlimited range. One works just fine in fact I would not notice a difference. I would have less hassle. My car would be fully charged every morning ready to make the trip to work or wherever else I need to go throughout the day, never having to be late because I forgot to stop for gas. If I or We had to make a long trip move a sofa go camping…we take the Four Runner. Less inconvenience not more. (I could not take the bus train… to work if I wanted.)Most of the people I know don’t either. Don’t presume to make that diction for me and other people. I may not want a V8 car. It may seem wasteful impractical and ridiculous to me but clearly that is what some people feel works for them. I am going off the assumption (historically viable assumption) that with acceptance comes the few buyers that can afford them and want them to higher production the cheaper prices and advances in tech that buyers will demand. Remember at one time computer executives thought nobody would want a computer in there home. I am not an electrical engineer nor do I have a PHD in Battery technology (lol) but we can create nano particles that can seek out cancer cells in the body, I have a hard time believing that improvements in electric storage can not be made. And no the big Auto makers will not make something just because it would be a good Idea and people would buy it. One Example in another area then I’ll shut up. CD’s suck they are fragile and become worthless if you are anything but gentle with them. Are there better options for cheap portable data storage other than the venerable CD? Of course there are. Why don’t the record companies and car stereo producers use those technologies? Because the CD format won.
Side note the batteries need to be replaced based in usage not on actual time. If you only used then half as much then they would last twice as long. Five years is an estimate based on typical driving habits not an absolute expiation date.
I also found facts from other sources but the wickapeda source was the easiest and clearest. If you would like others let I will dig them up. I noticed although you attempted to make the source seam less than credible you provided no rebuttal to the information. You even agreed with it. Was this a trick to make the rest of my statements appear flawed without having to actually dispute them? If so, Cheap shot. There is no reason to believe that any of info is incorrect if so please provide that evidence. And yes your right about range calculations they were (off a slip of a decimal point) I was not using the Th!nk car, I was using a 200 mile range which is currently obtainable with today’s Tech. Ok so 8000 mile range than. Sorry. Drive from one side of the county to the other. I would contend that a 600-800 mile range would be perfectly reasonable if you insist on the idea of a complete one technology replacement of the gasoline automobile, which would be a 300-400% increase that is much more obtainable. But again I don’t advocate One solution for everybody.
Yes, I agree with you, I could have an electric as a second car. But I’d rather just have one, like most do since that would be cheaper overall.
Yes, I do believe that electric cars can be viable as the only car. It’s just that the technology isn’t there yet. As a second car, sure, but not as the only one. My basic meaning with all this posting is that I think that it would need a monumental advancement in technologo. Incremental advancements just won’t do. It’s not enough. All my examples was supposed to be examples of just that; That the electric car technology advancements has been way more incremental than monumental.
Rebuttal? sorry I don’t understand that word. Don’t have the time to look it up and comment on the “trick” I’m supposed to have made, I’m leaving for christmas in under an hour and need to pack. Maybe when I get back. Oh yes, I’m taking the (supposedly enviromentally friendly) bus. :D
Merry Christmas!
As a mechanical engineer with a strong background in this subject, please consider me an authority on this point.
First, efficiency should be the top priority. Significant efficiency gains in energy extraction, production, implementation and utilization are all very achievable goals in the present and near future. I’ve also worked in industrial engineering roles and am well-aware that the financial argument as to why more efficient vehicles cannot be produced is entirely invalid. Ford’s Model-T is a classic example as to how mass production and standardization will enable any industry-leader to produce affordable … anything, less the cost of raw materials. So I have shot down the hand waving oil-industry economist’s pro-inefficiency argument.
Having worked as a mechanical engineer, I am well aware of what is possible, what is practical and what is not feasable. Let me tell you, it is not practical that a 5 person vehicle gets 30 mpg. Greater efficiency, oh say around 150 mpg and up, would be practical for the general public, however inconvenient for the oil industry. In fact, Porsche recently unveiled a sports car prototype capable of 300 mpg and better. Mazda has one. Many other head-scratching tinkerers have built personal prototypes capable of the same and wonder why it isn’t being done on a larger scale. I, myself, know how simple it would be to make my own efficient vehicle. So it is possible. Would you consider it practical? Let’s look at cost. What are the contibuting factors to the cost of a vehicle? Materials, production time, production quantity. What are the obstacles, really??? REALITY CHECK. THERE ARE NO PRACTICALITY OBSTACLES! What has been the obstacle since the 1950’s? – The oil industry and its partners in crime.
Don’t listen to any greedy moron who tells you that technology isn’t there or something proven and already existing is impossible. Tell them to prove it to you, or have them somehow disprove what you have already proven. Then laugh in their face and recognize them for what they are – manipulative, dishonest and self-centered.
Just found this little gem – http://phoenixmotorcars.com/models/fleet.html
Their claim is they are about to release ( and ship at least 500 in 2007) a sport utility truck that is 100% electric, top speed of 95mph, 130-mile range (with an extra pack that is coming soon the range goes up to 250) and can be charged in 20 minutes via an external charger pack. They will also release an SUV that is similar later in 2007. Without the rapid charge pack, it can be trickle-charged overnight.
I guess the electrics just aren’t coming soon, are they?
When I saw wind up car I automatically thought of Trevor Baylis http://windupradio.com/trevor.htm inventor of the wind-up radio. I’d like to see someone scale that up for a small car.
The EPA, Ford and Eaton http://www.designnews.com/article/CA220671.html have already developed the hydraulic hybrid. Want to build your own have a look here http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/05/prototype_vince.php
Toshiba has just announced a breakthrough in Lithium ion batteries that allows for a much greater energy density (higher power to weight ratio) and will accept an 80% charge in just one minute – they suggest major uses to be hybrid cars, consumer electronics and industrial uses. Also, after 1,000 recharges they lose less than 1% of their capacity. Link to story here: http://www.file22.com/?p=57
I think that the interest people are expressing in hybrids is driving the more visionary companies to do the research to develop things like this. GM was just in too much of a rush to write off the EV1. In the context of the electric cars and hybrids in all the comments above, what do you think the effect of this new breakthrough will have?
i have been thinking about this project for some time .the thoughts i have are of a electric slot car track. wall power to a speed control to a transformer to an a/c electric motor. but with a twist.the power is from a wind-up power spring with a switch set where the spring would trip when it un-winds and when it retracts to a certain point,the spring would be run on a gear reduction drive that would run a generator that would power a transformer to pump up the power that would be ran to an industrial speed ,control which would turn a high tourque (a/c) motor, attatched to the existing transmission of said car, interested yet?
continued; the transmission of the car is allready geared to the cars weight so you would have to get a motor that has the required torque to turn the gears i got this idea from a toy i had when i was a kid. or how about this one. my girlfriend bought this flashlight that winds up through a series of gears that turn an electric motor and turns it into a generator and powers up a nickel cadmium battery. that battery stores power to run a light. why no step it up a notch , as the axel shafts are turning they turn a battery charger that stores power for the motor, that turns the gears, that turn the motor that charges the battery that runs the high torque motor that runs the cars gear drive (transmission) of said Car,( wind -up radio idea)
Money rules all.
I understand the reasoning behind some of the more paranoid conspiracies dealing with oil industry, but
they totally ignore the profit motive. To my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong, the various car manufacturers are for the most part independent publicly traded companies that are not owned by the big oil conglomorates. If someone comes up with a safe, pratical, relatively economical, car that get 5-10 times the current level of MPG it will sell quite well, not to mention the same technology could likely be leveraged into more efficient generation of electricity.
The point is, profit is to be made. Companies diversify in the hopes of maximizing profit.
Imagine you are a billion dollar company. You come up with a real pratical car that gets 300 mpg.
You think you can’t put on an education campaign that forces the politicos to basically make your
technology mandatory?
(It happened with reformulated gas in california, and that stuff doesn’t really seem to work.)
Pushing out something that would reduced/eliminate dependance on foreign oil would be very, very
popular. Imagine a campaign where you could paint your opponent as being in thrawl of OPEC, it gets
people off the dime almost as fast as anything to do with drugs or money for old people.
(Or at least making it look like money for old people ala the drug program mess we have now.)
What would happen is that the government would do something along the lines of raising oil taxes to
deal with inevitable drop in the cost/barrel once super fuel efficient cars arrive.
Sadly we are still quite a ways before we can tell OPEC to pound sand.
Hey first post, so take it easy on me.
I had a couple of thoughts concerning auto motation and power supply problems in general. First off let me drop this link to a site that gives a (biased) view of solar power supplying all the worlds energy. It ignores some major facts, such as line loss during transmission etc, but still is interesting to think about. The page is here http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/solar_power_world.php
Ok. Momentarily ignoring the silly, unreal way the idea was proposed, there is some merit to the thought. Obviously a centralized power center has no chance of working. Way way too inefficient. So. Figure using roof space for solar panels all over the us. That helps some. On the interstate shoulders, and anywhere else that it seems apropos. (I have a dual reason for this that i’ll get to in a moment). Give tax breaks to consumers for excess energy produced by their personal solar systems. (theres some of this going on already) This would help offset maintainance costs. The excess energy dumped into the grid would allow utilities (Ie solar/wind farms) to more easily manage costs, and provide energy more affordably to industries/individuals with no power equipment. (also we’re of course for the monent ignoring any and all environmental impact, and logisitical problems.. And idiot drivers running over solar panels..)
On the environmental side of things one comment. There is concern that “absorbing” that much surface heat would have a large impact on the environment, but I disagree to some extent. That conservation of energy thing keeps cropping up. Sun makes energy. Energy goes into batteries/lines. Energy is used. Heat is the biproduct. This is a WAY oversimplified viewpoint im sure, but has at least some amount of truth to it.
Ok so we have solar everywhere possible and are generating excess energy (add in solar, some nuclear (or nucular if you’re the president)). How do we move to electric cars? Well as long as we’re adding solar collectors to the highways, why not use a bit of that energy? For short jaunts, cars should have their own power source, and limited range. Electric of course. Wanna take a highway trip? Drive your car to the freeway, hop on. Road sensors (or an onboard ID transmitter which is a scary thought) “talks” to bulkheads on the road. Pass location x, bulkhead x+1 generates a magnetic field yanking your car forward using some energy. We’re now AT the next X and x+1 hits again. Basiccally we’re talking a glorified rail gun for cars. You still have brakes for safety, but are essentially free spooling down the road. While you’re driving you aren’t using any of your cars battery, with the right design, (panels only on the northward side of the road so as not to block sunlight to the road itself) your car can top its batteries up while you cruise down the freeway using the national infrastructure. Unfortunately for cost purposes, I imagine it would have to be some type of toll system. Get on the road, the system logs your start point. Get off the road it logs your end point (or again, if the car has an ID, it could log it, but people would start hacking things immedietly to get free rides) Then based on car weight (which could be calculated based on energy needed to keep your car at the speedlimit?) used power can be charged to your account. If your home system makes enough excess, your trip could potentially be free.
Ok. Let the flames begin. :) And yes. I know its most likely not feasable. Still curious to know what people think.
Now if I could only figure out how to fit geothermal under the hood…just being silly. Of course geothermal can supplement other primary sources such as coal, nuke, solar…but more research for geo needs to be done, of course.
Ref: My post waay above–one of our “kickers” for our ‘power units’ is a set of antennas that safely retract via use of a lightning detector. Tesla invented a cruder version of this–his antenna did not retract, for example. We figure about a year or so before we can detail to the public our improvements. (And I’m old—and may not see the finished version…Oh well….) ;#)
Additional: Whatever happened to that 200-mile range compressed nitrogen vehicle built by the U of Washington?…
I got this idea last night when playing with a kid’s toy car, I’m not surprised that someone has already thought of it. My idea was to store the energy in a series of large springs (like garage door springs). When stopping the springs would stretch (or compress), then when the break was released the springs would engage to drive a gear connected to the axle. I haven’t read through all the comments, but I’m sure someone has mentioned the spring idea. My idea was to call it a hillbilly hybrid – I’m sure I can claim that as an original.
This makes tremendous sense! I once read a short story in Argosy Magazine (a questionable reference, at best) wherein a clock repairman in London designed a clock-work car to accept a main spring he stole. Drove around in it successfully. After his capture, the thrust of the the prosecution’s case seemed to revolve around his successful invention, not the theft. He was convicted, jailed and his plans confiscated, never to be heard of again. There’s probably an engineering problem that escapes me regarding a pure wind-up car. But hey, if we can develop the model, why not full-size?
You have a very good point my friend. It is sad the games we must play to get anywhere.
Though I’m doubtful as to whether the oil companies actually have much influence over the car companies, an experience I had a few years ago made me realize that they would not be above trying.
I worked at the epa’s rmp reporting center from 1998-2004 through contractors. We processed risk management plans that facilities with extremely hazardous chemicals had to submit. The following experience happened in about 2003.
If a facility neglected to include their certification letter, the submission would be processed as “Incomplete” and the fact that facility had submitted their report, but that it was incomplete, would be posted for all to see. When the facility submitted their certification letter, the new submission would then be processed as “Complete”, but both submissions (with their dates) could be seen by others. This was not really a big deal — out of the 15,000 submissions we received, some thousands had been processed as Incomplete until we received their certification letters. In theory, they could be heftily fined, but this never happened as long as the epa could see they were making a good faith effort to comply. I only saw one or two fines, and this was only when they more or less totally blew off the reporting process, and even then the fines were pretty small, just enough to nudge them to comply.
We had the ability to reprocess a submission as if the mistake had never happened, but we only did this on the rare occasions it was our mistake. We had processed thousands of incompletes, and never once had we reprocessed the corrected submission as if the incomplete had never happened unless it was our fault.
Most of the facilities were fairly small. One of the biggest in the country was an Exxon facility in Texas. They had dozens of extremely hazardous chemicals in large quantities, whereas a typical facility only had one or two. Well, they sent in a submission without a certification letter. Not a big deal, we just processed it as incomplete, as was the normal practice.
I got a call from the guy at Exxon who submitted the report. He wanted me to reprocess it so that the incomplete wouldn’t show up. I told him that we couldn’t do that, that all he had to do was send in the certification letter and we would process it as complete, but that the public record would continue to show the superseded incomplete. He told me that under the Clinton administration he knew the head of one of the epa departments. I wondered to myself why he would think who he knew would be relevant.
He told me that if I ever come to Texas, that we could fry some shrimp in oil.
I’ve never received an offer like that from a submitter. I used to work in corrections, and inmates were very good at making threats so that the inmate knew it was a threat, the officer knew it was a threat, but that the hearing officer would see it in black and white and wouldn’t be sure whether it was a threat or not.
He asked to speak to my supervisor. I transferred him. Ten minutes later, my supervisor told me to reprocess the submission as if the first had not occurred. We had encountered the same situation hundreds or thousands of times before, and that was not our policy. I documented his order in the file and did as he said.
I always wondered what the Exxon guy said to my supervisor that would make him give an order like that.
Small correction: The sentence was “Why don’t you come down to Texas and we’ll drown some shrimp in oil.”
Why a Hybrid?
Why not just a wind up car? It could be so simple to just pull over and wind up the cars springs when ever you run out of stored energy.
The car could have more than one spring to wind up, it would be as easy as switching over to another fuel tank.
The car could be equipped with a long bar to aid in mechanical advantage to wind the spring. There could be pull off spots on the highways to wind the spring safely.
Regenerative braking would also wind the spring.
Cost would equal better fitness and no waste.
Why couldn’t you put pedals (like an exercise bike) in place of the gas and brake pedals, this would give the driver exercise and create constant tension on the coil springs. The health clubs and gas companies might not like it.
You could put the gas and brakes on the steering wheel similar to a motorcycle.
Also every time you stop, the spring tension would be increased.
I also thought of a car that could run on a wind generator in place of the engine.
The motion of the car would turn the propeller on the generator- free energy!
The generator would power an electric motor attached to the drive shaft.
Combine this with the coil springs attached to the rear axle and you may have enough energy for the car to perform without fuel!
Aces! ;)
we need to reconfigure how we do our live ,work, travel. Less Mass transient,more mass-transport. Instead of many transports that we could not afford to make effective enough , less really cool that all could use.
Side note: before they were driven by electricity, many street car systems were driven by FLYWHEELS, wound up by hydro, steam, or animal power.
I have not read all of the comments on this post so I don’t know if anyone else has discussed it this way. There are a lot of comments so I apologize if someone else has already posted this idea. I had the idea of a wind up car some years back and it came to me when I was having my vehicle towed. Because of the make the tow-truck operator had to dolly the rear wheels and to do this he got out these little wheel Dollies that fit on the ground next to the rear tire,one for each rear tire. Then he got a long poll stuck it in this little dolly and simply walked from one end of my vehicle to the other and lifted it off the ground. I thought that was pretty neat. This only took a minute and off he went. A couple of years later I was investing in electric car companies and had the idea of a wind up car. I talked to a few freinds and they told me I was crazy but I know it could work. The only thing is my idea is that the car is solely wind up. You don’t need another source of energy because of leverage. I saw a man lift the corner of a car that weighed hundreds of pounds with no effort at all. So here is the idea I had. A vehicle would be equipped with two wind areas seated behind the driver and front passinger area, kind of where the read door conects on most four door vehicles. To wind the car, a person would open a small door there push down what looks like a large button that would then extend out by spring a few inches allowing the person to insert a long rod and basically then walk past the vehicle storing the torc in a large spring. This of course might take several passes on each side but could be done in a couple of minutes, probably less time then it takes to fuel most vehicles now. One last thing, although I know this idea could work, even if it was able to be proofed it would neve be allowed to hit the light of day. Just as the electric car hs been squashed, non-taxable sources of energy will never be allowed to be common place. I drove electric cars in the 1990’s that were great cars but the technology was never allowed out. I had invested in this company heavily and visited them several times. I got to drive a converted car and it did wonderfully on both city and highway testing and it didn’t need a gas engine. Hybrids are ridiculous and not needed. We have all the tech. To produce a comfortable and fisable electric car right now and for lot less that 200k but it simply won’t be allowed. Well this is my two cents worth….at least I’m not the only crazy one out there.