End of the muscle car... again?

[Azuremen]

1: an electric car has about as much soul as Ben Stein's character in "Ferris Buheler's day off." The only thing that seems more like a living machine than a good, piston-powered car is a Steam Locomotive.
2: You CANNOT modify the motor of an electric car. I dont care what you say, It can't be done without replacing it, and it won't really matter, anyway, because putting a bigger electric motor in a car of the same size will cause more problems than solutions.
3: Biofuel, that you mentioned, can be used in Piston powered cars, and, furthermore, it makes more power, since you can crank up the compression ratios in said cars.
4: The only way you'd completely eliminate gasoline powered cars is to scrap every single one of them. The only way you'd do that is to force everyone to buy an electric. Dictatorship, anyone?

1 - Soul is a relative term. I personally thing V8's with push-rods lack much creativity in this day and age, and thus lack some soul. Go watch a performance variant in person and tell me there is nothing to an electric car is it melts away its tires and wastes a Viper at the drag strip.

2 - Wrong, and wrong.

3 - Bio-fuel is pure fail. Lets make kids in Mexico starve and clear cut forests to grow more for them.

4 - I don't think anyone said they would ever be completely eliminated. But you certainly won't drive one often, because gasoline will reach the point where buying it is just stupid, say, $50 a gallon.

 

[Joey D]

1 - Soul is a relative term. I personally thing V8's with push-rods lack much creativity in this day and age, and thus lack some soul. Go watch a performance variant in person and tell me there is nothing to an electric car is it melts away its tires and wastes a Viper at the drag strip.

2 - Wrong, and wrong.

3 - Bio-fuel is pure fail. Lets make kids in Mexico starve and clear cut forests to grow more for them.

4 - I don't think anyone said they would ever be completely eliminated. But you certainly won't drive one often, because gasoline will reach the point where buying it is just stupid, say, $50 a gallon.

This post deserves +rep.

And the bio-fuel I was talking about is the kind made from used grease and wasted plant remains like corn husks and such.

 

[Azuremen]

This post deserves +rep.

And the bio-fuel I was talking about is the kind made from used grease and wasted plant remains like corn husks and such.

That is a bit better, but its still a short sighted solution. The ultimate solution to powering the US is nuclear power stations with electric vehicles and infrastructure. Combustible fuels should be saved for airlines and such, but I do wonder what they are going to do about that, as weight of far greater concern in aeronautics than cars...

Wow, talk about a whole different, probably more important subject. Who is going to want to pay triple for airline tickets?

 

[Venari]

Pif-paf.

If you want to run a petroleum powered car in the (far) future, you'll just have to apply for a licence to operate a historic vehicle.

You still see coal-powered steam trains run, right?

I'll happily roll out the Cougar in 2057 when it is 89 years old (or the Corvette at a sprightly 95.) I'm hoping that fuel will be cheaper by then because there will be no sense in taxing something that is such a specialist product. While everyone else is unplugging their electric cars from the grid (where electricity is centrally produced in the most efficient way possible) then I'll be topping up on av-gas and scaring the willies out of all the kiddiewinks in their Sony Fizz GTi-s (or for those wealthy European types, their Bang & Olufsen 500LMs.)

V.

 

[Jim Prower]

Just because they don't have the same sort of "soul" as petrol cars that makes them bad?

Does in my book, and in the book of many enthusiasts. can you shift on your own? can you listen to the revs as you wind your way down a mountain pass? Oh, wait, we have fake electronic noises for that. Never mind, I must be some sort of idiot. we can fool people by making engine noises. @_@

There is no substitute for piston engines. HOWEVER, there is a substutite for PETROL...

Uhhh yes you can, better batteries, different gearing, etc. You obviously know nothing about electric motors. There won't be a bunch of problems with them. When I was on the FIRST robotics team we modified our electric drill motors to be better all the time.

That's unfair to assume that, especially of someone who you just assume isn't an engineering student. Just because you can change a few parts on a drill doesn't mean you can do the same thing on a direct-drive automotive traction motor. Those motors can take a lot more abuse than a car's traction motor could, anyway, so they're a bit overbuilt.

Consider a Drill motor's application. It digs through choppy materials, often stalls. and it has to start again, possibly for years. there's a lot of abuse a little drill motor can take: They're overbuilt for what they are. an engineer won't do the same for a car, as it doesnt' need to be: it runs relatively smoothly, so it won't be any bigger than it needs to be, so it's light as it needs to be. to make it more powerful, and not severely shorten component life, you have to change EVERYTHING: the electric equivalent of stuffing a 2JZ and RWD drivetrain in a FWD Celica.

Wrong. When the price of petrol reaches $10-$12 (or higher) per gallon people will just change based on economic concerns.

Won't happen.

I'm not denying there'll be mainstream electric cars, as they WILL happen, but you CANNOT eliminate piston power. In fact, as biofuels increase in capacity (Algae and Switchgrass, other waste materials, hell, even waste paper, could be possibly used to make fuel. There's even ways to make it out of plastic.) and gasoline decreases in demand, we'll find that the price of oil should stabilize. Which is the problem...as demand for oil decreases, the biofuels, and even electricity, become more expensive than it. AGAIN. Figure out a way to make it cheaper than oil, or legislate oil out of the equation, and it might work.

What I see here is a short term solution that will put more strain on our already-overworked-in-places power grid. This is somehing we need to be thinking about, but it's something we can't just throw a band-aid on. Electric cars are a band-aid solution, in my opinion. What's supposedly "Zero Emissions," ends up chucking radioactive isotopes from coal in the air, because even the production of Hydrogen requires electricity. And I don't see much movement on new electric power technologies beyond the experimental stage: yes, there's plenty of experiments out there, but the power companies are reluctant to switch from their Coal Plants.

It's not technology. It's money. Economics. Want a perfect world? tough. We are human, we are inherently flawed, no solution is perfect.

 

[Azuremen]

You really are mis-informed, aren't you?

Power companies stick to Coal because Americans are terrified of Nuclear power. Nuclear power is cheaper and cleaner, and if you run that, using all electric stuff is not a band-aid fix.

And watch as the government does pass legislation that restricts the use of oil based fuels to historic vehicles and military/commercial usages. I can think of times when other materials were restricted to usages due to need and supply.

The combustion engine is a massive failure in the long run of things. It can never be more than 20% efficient (maybe 25%, its late/early) where as an electric motor can be nearly 100% efficient in the real world. You quoted economics, and that is very true.

However, economics would dictate people would want the cheapest per mile vehicle they can get. And guess what that is? An electric car. I hate to break it to you, but the electric car is the future, not bio-fuel, oil, or hydrogen.

 

[Jim Prower]

You really are mis-informed, aren't you?

Who are you listening to, Al Gore?

Power companies stick to Coal because Americans are terrified of Nuclear power. Nuclear power is cheaper and cleaner, and if you run that, using all electric stuff is not a band-aid fix.

I'll give you that, but have you seen how much it costs to build a nuclear plant? No, neither have I. and what about the increased load and maintainance on the grid? The spike on your electric bill when you find out how much power your new Volt XXI is adding? Could be upwards of $200-$300 dollars a month for what's essentially an economy car. Electricity is pretty expensive, already. add demand, add Cost. Simple. Economics.

And watch as the government does pass legislation that restricts the use of oil based fuels to historic vehicles and military/commercial usages. I can think of times when other materials were restricted to usages due to need and supply.

So long as piston powered vehicles have biofuels available. There's new emerging technologies on this front, and I think it's more feasible.

The combustion engine is a massive failure in the long run of things. It can never be more than 20% efficient (maybe 25%, its late/early) where as an electric motor can be nearly 100% efficient in the real world. You quoted economics, and that is very true.

Really, who cares? this "Efficency" thing...they're not taking into account the inefficiencies in distributing the power, teh maintainance costs and costs of beefing things up.

However, economics would dictate people would want the cheapest per mile vehicle they can get. And guess what that is? An electric car. I hate to break it to you, but the electric car is the future, not bio-fuel, oil, or hydrogen.

See comment about your electric bill. it's a hidden cost, but for the raw energy required to power one or two cars, I'm pretty sure it'll put a hefty sum on your energy bill. especially when the electric companies realize they're now in the transportation business and raise their rates accordingly.

Electirc cars are not a magic bullet. they aren't a good solution for the long term, and the money you're sending to the oil companies now, you'll send to the electric company later. one way, or another.

 

[Joey D]

Most people want the most efficient thing for their money, internal combustion engines are very inefficient.

Look I'm not a liberal tree hugging hippy, I don't think the car is making the earth hotter or killing some species of penguin. I don't think oil is even going to run out in the near future, but I do think it's going to be so expensive no one is going to want to use it. Are you going to want to pay $200-$250 to fill your car up? No not at all, plus that wouldn't even work in America since we have to be idiots and not have a public transport system worth a damn.

 

[Azuremen]

Haha. This should be great. I'll go pull all the numbers from a friend of mine that designs and is working getting an electric car into production. Its called the Tango.

You are massively exagerrating elements on your behalf, while over playing a relative nascent technology that many experts say is short sighted.

Efficiency is critical. You cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics, and I assure you energy lost to heat in combustion is much greater than any electric energy lost over relays and wires.

I could break this down in a big fun physics problem looking at the required energies to move a 1000 kg car around town and what not, but I am really lazy and it is really late.

And I might as well add that I pretty much hated Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and am about the furtherest thing from a tree hugger you can find. However, most people at least like to feign some concern for the environment, which ultimately affects sales and economy. Talk with an economics professor or expert, and they will tell you more than just cost to gain controls economics. Psychology comes into play quite a bit actually.

 

[Jim Prower]

You still havent' convinced me at all. I dont' like the idea of the extra load on our power grids, and I don't like the idea of driving around in a car that claims to be a sports car, but could put me to sleep.

The future, as I see it, Is a mix of the various technologies. Electricity is NOT the only way of the future. This Efficency, you're only talking about the car, but you're not taking into account how efficent electric production, and, furthermore, distribution is. I'll guess they're about the same as combustion engines, perhaps about 50% for Nuclear, but then again, with the immense power produced, I wouldnt' be surprised if it hovered around 25%. remember, in most processes, you're using the heat energy: only a part of the energy produced. In Wind and Water energy, you're also only capturing a portion of the available energy, and some of that is converted to heat.

No one's concerned about efficeincy. It's how much they will be paying out of their wallet, and, while Electric cars may be seductive, you're still putting your trust in the corporate sector...just as much as gasoline. and, when the meter reader sees your electric car, he'll check that little box that sends your electric bill through the roof.

If this electric future does happen, the electric company will end up the world's new oil shiekh.

 

[Joey D]

Wrong, many many many people are concerned with efficiency when it comes to their vehicles.

 

[Jim Prower]

Only in regards to how much it will cost them. This "Efficency" of the electric car, anyway, takes not into account the production of electricity, and I've heard you say nothing to that regard, other than saying "We should build a bunch of nuclear plants," which is all well and good, but are you just gonna use the existing wires? how many amps does recharging one of these cars draw?

I mean, hell, even Gasoline production depends on electricity, somewhat. Let's fix our infrastructure, first.

(If you must ask, no, I don't trust the electric companies, yes, they've screwed the state over, and any excuse for them to do it again is another strike against whatever may cause it.)

 

[Joey D]

Why would an electric car require heavier duty wires over say the normal ones going to a house that is using a washing machine or a toaster? All you are doing is plugging the car into a battery charger. My charger at home plugs into a 110V basic wall plug and will fully charge a dead battery in about 3 hours. Hell even ramping it up to a 220V wouldn't really affect anything.

Nuclear power, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc. all will need to be implemented sooner or later, might as well start now. We can't keep putting this off like we have been doing.

 

[Jim Prower]

Because, you're taking the energy that's going to gas stations now, and putting it into the same wires that power your home. Will you agree that there's a LOT of energy going into powering private automobiles, and it might reqire more power than the current power lines can handle? 2.5 automobiles per household, drawing a good deal of energy overnight, (heck, in a couple hours as charging times reduce) could send electric demand skyrocketing. and as demand increases, and supply stays the same, price goes up. that's what's with oil.

But we're talking a HUGE increase in demand. this means new lines. more maintainance. possible blackouts/brownouts in places where companies try to squeeze their last dollar by trying to shove twice the energy through half the lines.

Yes, the new types of power need to be implimented, too, but who's going to pay for it? and what's going to happen when it's all paid off? price won't go down: demand hasnt' decreased, and there's no reason not to make even more profit.

I see a Fleecing of America just waiting to rear it's ugly head.

 

[Joey D]

You don't seem to get it, either we pay for new power plants now or we keep paying more and more for the dwindling supply of coal and natural gas. If I'm going to be paying more I would rather put my money into something that will eventually level off after a high initial cost then something that keeps going up and up and will never level off.

Electric cars do not draw that much energy off the grid, you are making it seem like if we switched to electric cars then the whole world would black out. Not everyone will charge their vehicles at the same time, nor will everyone buy an electric car at once.

 

[Tornado]

I agree with Jim to an extent. Before we worry about what will actually replace fossil fuels (and I'm not entirely sure any of the ideas currently thought of will work in the long run), we need to figure out how that energy will be supplied. The actual infrastructure needs to be set up before anything else does.

Their are rolling brown and blackouts already, and electric cars on a mass scale are still but a dream. Even if nuclear plants lighten up the load (which are still arguably a good way away from being accepted in the mainstream), we need to think about how things will be when all cars are electric, and have everything set in advance for that time well before hand.

We also have to take into account that our nuclear infrastructure would also need to be overhauled so we know what to do with nuclear byproducts when we get them, other then the way it is now which is dealing with them whichever way is cheaper. This isn't to mention that nuclear plants are still a bit expensive for many companies to bother with it (which does need to change, but would probably require legislation to do so).

 

[Gil]

Okay, but bio-diesel can be generated from a number of sources. Hell, if the liquor manufacturers devote 25% of their capacity to producing ethanol suitable for burning in combustion engines, that will alleviate some of the need to buy fuel from OPEC.
Add to that "hypothetical" car a way for the gas engine to charge an electric one...The possibliities become rather interesting.
As I said earlier, muscle cars will be here for a long time to come.
There may be some changes in the way we define "muscle".
Hell, if you had told me in my youth, when the average Civic had about 65 HP, that before I got too old Civics would be pulling down 12 sec. quarter miles, I'd have laughed uproariously. But they are doing it.
I used to be a big "-8's are the only way to make power" guy. I've learned better over the years.
Yes, I still prefer the visceral impact a V-8 has.
But, big power is no longer the solely the realm of the V-8.
I've had hot I-4's, Strong I-6's and V-6's as well as V-8s.
Yes the V-8's make the best noises. But grab the last year's worth of Motor Trend, Car & Driver, Road & Track, etc. Look at the comparisons. It don't have be a V-8 or a sot for fuel to be fast as the old muscle cars were.

4 and 6 cylinder cars of today, and I mean the grocery getters, will run pretty close to muscle cars of the 60's, without the noise and fuss, (which, I agree, is the good part).
But there is really no reason to lament the fall of 4500 lb coupes with drum brakes, lap belts, and non-locking seat backs. Yes, they were fun to drive. But, it wasn't because they were any great shakes as an automobile. It was because driving a '66 Chevelle with a 427, was a lot like taming a lion with a toothpick.
You can't help but feel something after surviving an encounter with a beast/car that won't stop or turn worth a damn, but will make 100 MPH in about 12 seconds.

 

[Azuremen]

...
You keep talking about HUGE increases on the grid. Do you realize most of this charging would happen at night, when there is virtually no draw off the grid?

Like I said, I'll get the numbers for it. In the mean time, you can worry about how the electric companies want to take the money out of your bum... even though they are regulated by the government, so if you really want to worry about something, worry about the government.

Of course, we could get tin hats out too and worry about aliens along with every other conspiracy theory. And Al Gore is really a robot sent from the future to destroy us with lies about the environment.

 

[JCE]

So when oil is almost $1000 a barrel and it's petrol is no longer a viable fuel option then what? At some point we need to switch to a better, less expensive, fuel source.

There are other ways to fuel a vehicle. Hydrogen and Ethanol are two viable options for the future. And they can still be used in a piston type engine. Yay.

Your car flies? Can I have it?

Vertically along the road, but I suspect you were being sarcastic.

I don't think anything will be diminished, at all. Maybe thats because I am use to the whine of high revving four cylinders, I don't know. But you'll likely not have much of a choice when the decision gets made to go to electric cars, and that is where they will go.

Electric cars aren't viable the near future, other liquid or gas fuels are. Electric cars as a whole aren't going to be practical for probably 50+ years...if even then.

Nah, there'll be piston-poppers for a long, long while, unless our government starts oppressively legislating them out. At which time I move to China.

If I have to move to China to use a normal piston engine then that's what I have to do. I will never give up the piston engine. I DON'T care how much faster or more reliable a stupid electric car may be.

Why are people so against changing from petrol powered engines? Oil isn't going to run out for a long time yet and I'm not one to believe that the car is destroying the environment, but soon, like within the next 10 year oil will not be economically viable for us to use.

I could care less if PETROL is extiguished, but other alternative FUELS that still can be used in PISTON engines I do care about. Driving to me isn't as much of a mindless chore that alot of people have made it out to be. I enjoy driving most of the time when there's no traffic. I have ZERO problem with people buying electric cars and hybrids, just don't shove them down our throats where there are/will be other forms of getting yourself around with a non-fossil fueled car.

Electric cars will get better and not look like complete ass or fail miserably (ala EV-1), hydrogen will be become easier to store as well as "make", bio-fuel will be more available and so on. Petrol engines have served their purpose, now it's time to move on to newer and better technology.

The part in bold is my point exactly.

Agreed. And lets remember kids that petrol engines are only about 15% efficient versus the 90% or so from an electric motor.

I smell an Al Gore lover.

1: an electric car has about as much soul as Ben Stein's character in "Ferris Buheler's day off."

Agreed. If electric cars were forced down our throats I'd stuff some sort of plentiful fuel engine in it just out or spite.

2: You CANNOT modify the motor of an electric car. I dont care what you say, It can't be done without replacing it, and it won't really matter, anyway, because putting a bigger electric motor in a car of the same size will cause more problems than solutions.

Actually, in all fairness I disagree. Anything can be modified, and I do think that more juice can be squeezed out of an electric motor. But, who cares its still a lifeless boring sleep-inducing vehicle. zzzzzz

3: Biofuel, that you mentioned, can be used in Piston powered cars, and, furthermore, it makes more power, since you can crank up the compression ratios in said cars.

Exactly, bio-fuels are a brilliant alternative. In which the world's goverments or rich corporations should start the massive preparation of producing it on a truely worldly scale.

4: The only way you'd completely eliminate gasoline powered cars is to scrap every single one of them. The only way you'd do that is to force everyone to buy an electric. Dictatorship, anyone?

Incase you haven't noticed there is no real "free" country. The US Goverment along with the rest of the world's "democracies" legislate the **** out of their citizens in even the most tiny of ways.

Just because they don't have the same sort of "soul" as petrol cars that makes them bad?

Yes.

Uhhh yes you can, better batteries, different gearing, etc. You obviously know nothing about electric motors. There won't be a bunch of problems with them. When I was on the FIRST robotics team we modified our electric drill motors to be better all the time.

While I agree with you that electric motors can have its power increased you are blind and short-sided to assume that there will be no problems with them. They all have moving parts, even if significantly less than a piston engine they still do. ALL MOVING PARTS can and do break at random intervals based on alot of factors. The electric motor isn't perfect, nothing is. Which is precisely why we need more than just elecric motors.

I would even go so far as to create a full hybrid electric+hydrogen car. Best of both worlds.

Wrong. When the price of petrol reaches $10-$12 (or higher) per gallon people will just change based on economic concerns.

True, but as evidence by supercars, hypercars, large petrol powered SUVs, and Hummers some people won't.

1 - Soul is a relative term. I personally thing V8's with push-rods lack much creativity in this day and age, and thus lack some soul.

That's your opinion. I would however disagree as with probably alot of the other auto enthusiasts. If you pit the electric motor against the piston engine--irregardless of its type/size/origins the electric motor will lose that "soul" arguement 99 times out of 100--barring some tree hugging *****.

Go watch a performance variant in person and tell me there is nothing to an electric car is it melts away its tires and wastes a Viper at the drag strip.

You are missing the point. By "soul", most people are going to refer to either driving nirvana and or driving pleasure. And you can't have nirvana without as many senses as possible being stimulated. And electric motors will lose all sense of power and pleasure when you don't feel the vibration of the engine and the noise it produces. A high-pitched whine all by itself just isn't cool. High strung 4cyl engines by my definition of "soul" are lightyears infront of the electric motors in terms of driving pleasure. And that isn't even what everyone would prefer--that isn't even considering other larger/more cyl engines. Having a choice between a 3cyl. Geo Metro engine or a 400bhp electric motor I'd choose the 3cyl engine.

3 - Bio-fuel is pure fail. Lets make kids in Mexico starve and clear cut forests to grow more for them.

Wrong. It can be done, you just would choose the easy way out by going only electric--which would take even longer for the WHOLE WORLD to adapt. Remove all oil pumps from land and replace them with a bio-fuel sourced plant would be a step in the right direction. And here's a thought, plants produce oxygen--not as much as trees but more than an empty field. You'd have to ENGINEER the ABILITY for some countries to even GET STARTED with electric cars. GROWING FUEL is more viable for lower-income countries because growing bio-fuel ingridients would be much easier and more cost effective.

And the bio-fuel I was talking about is the kind made from used grease and wasted plant remains like corn husks and such.

I refer to bio-fuel as a whole because that makes sense. That's like referring to fossil fuels as purely petrol and omitting diesel. Lie by omission.

That is a bit better, but its still a short sighted solution. The ultimate solution to powering the US is nuclear power stations with electric vehicles and infrastructure.

Nuclear power will never become the reality for the near future, because everyone's beloved tree hugging anti-car groups hate nuclear power. Its a paradox with these people. I for one would love to see coal power plants go away and be replaced by nuclear power. But, I don't feel the safety is ready for such a massive implimentation for the continents yet.

Combustible fuels should be saved for airlines and such, but I do wonder what they are going to do about that, as weight of far greater concern in aeronautics than cars...

Airplanes burn an ass-load of fuel--that REALLY needs to be addressed quickly. THAT is where my focus would be. And seeing as how they fly thousands of feet into the air that exhaust gas gets protruded further up into the atmosphere more quickly.

Does in my book, and in the book of many enthusiasts. can you shift on your own? can you listen to the revs as you wind your way down a mountain pass? Oh, wait, we have fake electronic noises for that. Never mind, I must be some sort of idiot. we can fool people by making engine noises. @_@

There is no substitute for piston engines. HOWEVER, there is a substutite for PETROL...

Exactly.

It's not technology. It's money. Economics. Want a perfect world? tough. We are human, we are inherently flawed, no solution is perfect.

Quoted for truth.

and I don't like the idea of driving around in a car that claims to be a sports car, but could put me to sleep.

Quoted for truth.

The future, as I see it, Is a mix of the various technologies. Electricity is NOT the only way of the future.

Quoted for truth.

No one's concerned about efficeincy. It's how much they will be paying out of their wallet, and, while Electric cars may be seductive, you're still putting your trust in the corporate sector...just as much as gasoline.

If this electric future does happen, the electric company will end up the world's new oil shiekh.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Azuremen]

Please never mention hydrogen again. Ever. Hydrogen power in a combustion engine is just silly, because you have to get the hydrogen using electric power.

My driving nirvana is purely based on hitting apexs and working the corners. I could careless about engine roar in my ears.

The rest of it is just a matter of opinion I guess you could say, but still, to think electric cars aren't the future when you look at the power conversions other things require and the crap that is the internal combustion engine, well, meh.

 

[JCE]

Please never mention hydrogen again. Ever.

Hydrogen is a viable solution just like bio-fuels and pure electric engines. I mentioned it, I have a right to.

Hydrogen power in a combustion engine is just silly, because you have to get the hydrogen using electric power.

I don't think so, it burns clean, it behaves like--no better than a petrol powered car, AND you can get a real good driving experience by having all your senses touched.

My driving nirvana is purely based on hitting apexs and working the corners. I could careless about engine roar in my ears.

That's for you, and that's fine. Alot more people would disagree than agree with you.

The rest of it is just a matter of opinion I guess you could say, but still, to think electric cars aren't the future when you look at the power conversions other things require and the crap that is the internal combustion engine, well, meh.

Alot of it is mostly opinion at this point. But, electric ONLY cars aren't viable in the next 50 years because of the MASIVE infrastructure that you'd need to assemble before you even THINK about making it wide-spread. And electric power will basically cut off poorer countries from the "fun" because they don't have the resources needed to produce that kind of infrastructure. And I sure as hell don't want to pay for SOMEONE ELSE'S bull**** when there's enough to pay for at home.

 

[Tornado]

Do you realize most of this charging would happen at night, when there is virtually no draw off the grid?

I doubt that would actually be the case. A large portion of America's workforce works the graveyard shift.
And even if that was the case, your talking a couple million cars all charging at once at night in certain areas (like in major cities), at a time that electric companies typically use as down time or time for maintenance work.

And electric power will basically cut off poorer countries from the "fun" because they don't have the resources needed to produce that kind of infrastructure.

That is something I hadn't thought of. How do non-nuclear nations that have automobiles get in on this hypothetical scenario?


Oh, and hydrogen? Ewww.

 

[Dave A]

I think the vast majority of people, espeically middle aged people couldn't care, electric, hydrogen, petrol or whatever. Infact, I bet the lack of engine roar in an electric car would be a plus point for a lot of people.

Ofcourse I agree with JCE3000GT that it shouldn't be rammed down anyones thorats, but by contrast you need to remember that this is a forum largly used by car and motorpsort fans who don't make up the vast majority of road users. Ofcourse I love the sound of a well tuned engine and engine noise certainly does add to the effect of driving for me, but it doesn't for my parents or Charlotte. In my house it's 50/50, in my parents house it's 0/100 and I can see the balance nationwide tipping heavilly in the "don't care" or would prefer a quiter engine categories.

 

[Joey D]

You realise hydrogen takes fossil fuels to make it right? Bio-fuels also burn more fuel than they save. Electric powered cars with nuclear, wind, and solar power is the right direction to start heading.

And I would love a silent car.

 

[JCE]

You realise hydrogen takes fossil fuels to make it right? Bio-fuels also burn more fuel than they save. Electric powered cars with nuclear, wind, and solar power is the right direction to start heading.

And I would love a silent car.

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

The power plants of such vehicles convert the chemical energy of hydrogen to mechanical energy (torque) in one of two methods: electrochemical conversion in a fuel-cell, or combustion :

• In combustion, the hydrogen is burned in engines in fundamentally the same method as traditional gasoline cars.
• In fuel-cell conversion, the hydrogen is reacted with oxygen to produce water and electricity, the latter of which is used to power an electric traction motor.

If I'm reading correctly it can be produced in a couple of ways.

 

[Azuremen]

You aren't reading correctly, at all. Joey is talking about producing hydrogen, not how it is used.

 

[Joey D]

You aren't reading correctly, at all. Joey is talking about producing hydrogen, not how it is used.

Exactly, you can use it all sorts of ways.

 

[Jim Prower]

Hydrogen can be made using Electrolosys and Thermolosys. Electrolosys fits right into your superelectric plan.

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

 

[Joey D]

Both require huge amounts of energy that is produced by a coal or natural gas burning power plant. But look at the very first line of the wiki article:

Hydrogen production is commonly completed from hydrocarbon fossil fuels via a chemical path

The easiest way is still through fossil fuels making it pretty much pointless. Hydrogen isn't the way to go...to make it work we still need to change our power system over to wind, solar, or nuclear power. If you go that far you might as well just take out the fuel source and make cars purely electric.

 

[JCE]

Solar power can be used to produce hydrogen. There was an Eco-tech special on the Science channel last night actually talking about bio-fuels. I wish I would of recoded it. Some MIT guy is working on a method to produce photosynthesis through chemistry to solve the producing hydrogen problem. It was quite fascinating.