Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 6:19:23 GMT -5
"Refueling" is free? I'm not sure I get how that works. I recently drove 900+ miles twice in my Camry. Iola Wisconsin to the Minnesota/Canadian border and back. I filled up before starting and at the border before returning. Took less than a tank for the one way trip. Maybe ten minutes total refueling each trip. Approximately $60.00 worth of gasoline for a 900 mile trip? How would that experience compare with the same trip with the Tesla? Simply put, it can't and I never claimed that it could. You win, I lose. I also said my internal gas tank is only good for around 200 miles The last time I drove over 900 miles was an 18 hour trip from Orlando Florida to my home in Illinois bringing back my Mother's remains to be buried. I have more years behind me than ahead. I have no more relatives left on my side from my parents generation. I am self taught on just about everything in my life (except for the violins, did not want to screw that up) I have been addicted to preserving history since I was a little kid when I received a Globe-Corder tape recorder for a gift and still have. (picture attached) Not a matter of winning or losing. I was wondering how a car like that would work for a person like me with my needs. Obviously, if it fits your needs, that's great. It's your car. Looks good and works fine.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Aug 4, 2016 9:29:51 GMT -5
I read somewhere where Toyota (Honda?) is going to stop developing electrics. The battery problem is too insurmountable. But they are putting their research into fuel cells. Electric engines are very well developed and efficient. It's the fuel component (batteries and charging) that have always been and still is the problem. But with a fuel cell, you're not charging a battery. You're combusting something (hydrogen & oxygen) to turn a generator to create the electricity needed to run the electric drive motor.
You could make a gas powered generator that makes the electricity to rune the motor. But the problem with all that is you have 2 engines; the one to run the generator; and the one to drive the vehicle.
But Somehow I think there's hope for that in the future. Batteries are the bane of electricity.
But it looks lovely, Gene. Enjoy ! (Will it beat a Mazda 3.5 off the line?)
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 4, 2016 10:35:55 GMT -5
... You could make a gas powered generator that makes the electricity to rune the motor. But the problem with all that is you have 2 engines; the one to run the generator; and the one to drive the vehicle... Works for trains (ok, their generator is diesel)
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Aug 4, 2016 11:52:58 GMT -5
You're right. But they are real BIG. And I don't know how fuel efficient they are. I would imagine quite good, erstwhile they wouldn't be the be-all and end-all of train locomotion. But their payback can be long range. The things are around forever and do a lot of heavy lifting.
I'd think there'd be a way to scale it down to auto size. The combustion engine part could be anything; gas, diesel, fuel cell, or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 4, 2016 12:44:12 GMT -5
I read somewhere where Toyota (Honda?) is going to stop developing electrics. The battery problem is too insurmountable. But they are putting their research into fuel cells. Electric engines are very well developed and efficient. It's the fuel component (batteries and charging) that have always been and still is the problem. That's exactly it. The issue is the batteries. This is true in transportation as well as utilities. If somehow we could develop "magic" batteries that efficiently allowed for the dis-association of electric generation from electric consumption, everything we know about energy would change immediately. We are not there yet. In utility applications, batteries needn't be small or light or even particularly efficient. Just cheap. In transportation applications, batteries need to be small, light, efficient, cheap AND durable and safe and fast charging. Tough challenge. That is the one absolute advantage that electric cars already have: DC motors deliver insane amounts of torque, instantaneously. Even low-end electric cars are rocket ships off the line. Don Garlits built an electric drag racer a few years ago. He was hoping for 200MPH, and got close. Still, running in the 7's is FAST!What's interesting is that it is the weight of the batteries that is holding him back. It still goes back to energy density, and there's just no known substitute for hydrocarbons.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 4, 2016 12:47:52 GMT -5
One other thing that deserves mentioning: Their technology may or may not turn out to be an engineering dead end, but you have to be impressed with Tesla and what they have done. They are making what is arguably the best car in the world right now. In the US. In California.
There are a lot of guys who have made a lot(!) of money in technology. We are seeing that money getting re-invested into some interesting projects. Google (ie, Alphabet) is all over this stuff. Most of those big projects are destined for failure, as is inevitably the case. But collectively, they may end up coming up with some interesting stuff.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 4, 2016 13:14:23 GMT -5
The "electric" part of diesel-electric locomotives only serves as a power transfer device, sort of like a clutch-less CVT in an automobile. The reason is simple. Refer to Jeff's comments on instantaneous gobs of torque. It doesn't make sense to scale it down to automotive proportions.
And fuel cells don't involve combustion. They are membranes that capture the energy released from catalyzing hydrogen and oxygen into water. The problem with hydrogen as a fuel (aside from the abysmally low energy content- roughly a tenth of hydrocarbons) is that it doesn't exist alone in the world, it needs to be manufactured. Typically by using electricity to remove it from water or- wait for it- fossil fuels. In that sense a fuel cell is really more like a acid-less battery feeding electric motors than an engine.
And that's why hydrocarbons can't be beat. They allow massive energy storage simply, safely, and without loss. You just have to do the energy conversion on board. And hydrocarbons come right out of the ground ready to use. You just have to distill them down into the composition that suits your application. And you can do that at very high volumes very cheaply (the US uses about 800 million gallons of oil a day).
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 4, 2016 14:52:54 GMT -5
Hard to get past the part where internal combustion engines waste 60-80% of the energy in heat. Even a steam engine gets better efficiency than internal combustion engines. For every gal of gas you use you only get 26 oz of power. Boom push is just not an efficient way to convert stored power to rotary power.
More efficiency means more money up the chain. Money rules.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Aug 4, 2016 15:02:21 GMT -5
Hard to get past the part where internal combustion engines waste 60-80% of the energy in heat. Even a steam engine gets better efficiency than internal combustion engines. For every gal of gas you use you only get 26 oz of power. Boom push is just not an efficient way to convert stored power to rotary power. More efficiency means more money up the chain. Money rules. So what is your point? We should go back to Stanley Steamers?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 4, 2016 16:04:51 GMT -5
Hard to get past the part where internal combustion engines waste 60-80% of the energy in heat. Even a steam engine gets better efficiency than internal combustion engines. For every gal of gas you use you only get 26 oz of power. Boom push is just not an efficient way to convert stored power to rotary power. More efficiency means more money up the chain. Money rules. Yes, steam engines (ie, external combustion) are inherently more efficient than internal combustion engines. They are also dramatically easier to control for emissions, and piston generated steam power is vastly smoother than that coming from internal combustion engines. Steam engines also deliver a torque profile that pretty much matches a DC electric motor, resulting in significant simplification of transmission and drivetrain requirements. (A steam car doesn't need a clutch and can probably get by with no more than two gears, if it needs a transmission at all.) All this was well understood over 100 years ago. And yet today we produce internal combustion cars by the millions, and zero steam powered cars. There's a reason for that. Your answer is to say "Ok, then lets move all the steam generators to a central location and use electricity to distribute the resulting power". And everything about your waste heat argument just went up in smoke.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 4, 2016 17:40:19 GMT -5
It's just that there are lots of ways to get power out of hydrocarbons and almost everyone of them doesn't waste 80% of the power. I'd like to see it not be a central location (power plant in every home) but the big guys can't make money with that and money rules. Even if you used internal combustion at a central location you could find a way to use the waste heat increasing efficiency, with a car the only use for the waste heat is to run your heater in the winter. With a steam car you would have the same problem just to a lesser degree with the condenser system. Burn gas, run your steam engine, produce waste heat but in that case the waste is only 60% not 80% so you are doubling the efficiency.
Batteries that will give you a 200 mile range are just now getting to the usable range. Electric cars are going to be the vehicle propulsion of the near future (20-30 yrs) not for environmental reason (that's a side benefit) but because the guy with the fuel can make more money by getting more efficiency. Cars beat horses because they were cheaper (getting the horse shit off the streets was a side benefit) money rules.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 4, 2016 17:52:20 GMT -5
It's just that there are lots of ways to get power out of hydrocarbons and almost everyone of them doesn't waste 80% of the power. I'd like to see it not be a central location (power plant in every home) but the big guys can't make money with that and money rules. Even if you used internal combustion at a central location you could find a way to use the waste heat increasing efficiency, with a car the only use for the waste heat is to run your heater in the winter. With a steam car you would have the same problem just to a lesser degree with the condenser system. Burn gas, run your steam engine, produce waste heat but in that case the waste is only 60% not 80% so you are doubling the efficiency. Batteries that will give you a 200 mile range are just now getting to the usable range. Electric cars are going to be the vehicle propulsion of the near future (20-30 yrs) not for environmental reason (that's a side benefit) but because the guy with the fuel can make more money by getting more efficiency. Cars beat horses because they were cheaper (getting the horse shit off the streets was a side benefit) money rules. The great thing about the free market is that you're always welcome to try to empirically prove that. Build it and see who shows up to buy it.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 4, 2016 18:09:17 GMT -5
They already are showing up to buy it. Market for elec cars has gone up exponentially over the last 30 yrs. Standard Oil created a market for it's product to make more money, and used the government to push it buy building better roads. You want to call it a niche market, fine but that niche is urban dwellers, and they are mighty big niche.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 4, 2016 18:14:24 GMT -5
I do wonder how you are going to get a cool car song out of elec. "3 dues and four speed and a 389" or "409"
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 4, 2016 18:20:34 GMT -5
Hard to get past the part where internal combustion engines waste 60-80% of the energy in heat. Even a steam engine gets better efficiency than internal combustion engines. For every gal of gas you use you only get 26 oz of power. Boom push is just not an efficient way to convert stored power to rotary power. More efficiency means more money up the chain. Money rules. Yes, steam engines (ie, external combustion) are inherently more efficient than internal combustion engines. They are also dramatically easier to control for emissions, and piston generated steam power is vastly smoother than that coming from internal combustion engines. Steam engines also deliver a torque profile that pretty much matches a DC electric motor, resulting in significant simplification of transmission and drivetrain requirements. (A steam car doesn't need a clutch and can probably get by with no more than two gears, if it needs a transmission at all.) All this was well understood over 100 years ago. And yet today we produce internal combustion cars by the millions, and zero steam powered cars. There's a reason for that. Your answer is to say "Ok, then lets move all the steam generators to a central location and use electricity to distribute the resulting power". And everything about your waste heat argument just went up in smoke. That's the funny thing for me. None of these ideas are new (well, technically fuel cells are new). Many of the first trains were electric. That's how diesel electric came about. The power of the diesel married to the old school transmission of the electric. Internal combustion, external combustion, electric, petroleum, hydrogen, alcohols, natural gas, propane, wood, coal, liquified coal, etc. It's all been done at one point or another. And petroleum fueled internal combustion wins every challenge. Versatile, safe, cheap, scalable, adapts to most any application, etc. I view it as the revenge of the central planners. Some bureaucrat thinks that some technology has gotten the short shrift and then sets out to alter the market to make up for it. Never seems to work though.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 4, 2016 18:20:38 GMT -5
Doug, do you understand why they build power plants next to rivers and/or give them cooling towers?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Aug 4, 2016 18:29:01 GMT -5
Doug, do you understand why they build power plants next to rivers and/or give them cooling towers? Yes, to turn the water wheels. But now I'm gonna pick for an hour, eat, then spend time with Chris. I'll get back to you later.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 4, 2016 19:29:19 GMT -5
They already are showing up to buy it. Market for elec cars has gone up exponentially over the last 30 yrs. Standard Oil created a market for it's product to make more money, and used the government to push it buy building better roads. You want to call it a niche market, fine but that niche is urban dwellers, and they are mighty big niche. An exponential increase from zero is still dangerously close to zero. The U.S. car market runs about 15 to 18 million a year. Hybrids, the most popular "alternative" vehicle, peaked in roughly 2012 at a hair over 3% and has been falling ever since (cheap gas does that). And that includes hybrids tuned for performance as well as fuel economy. Electrics aren't even a pimple on that share's ass yet. Tesla's been selling cars for 3 or 4 years now and have managed to only sell about 100,000. That ain't nothing.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Aug 6, 2016 5:13:10 GMT -5
It's just that there are lots of ways to get power out of hydrocarbons and almost everyone of them doesn't waste 80% of the power. I'd like to see it not be a central location (power plant in every home) but the big guys can't make money with that and money rules. Even if you used internal combustion at a central location you could find a way to use the waste heat increasing efficiency, with a car the only use for the waste heat is to run your heater in the winter. With a steam car you would have the same problem just to a lesser degree with the condenser system. Burn gas, run your steam engine, produce waste heat but in that case the waste is only 60% not 80% so you are doubling the efficiency. Batteries that will give you a 200 mile range are just now getting to the usable range. Electric cars are going to be the vehicle propulsion of the near future (20-30 yrs) not for environmental reason (that's a side benefit) but because the guy with the fuel can make more money by getting more efficiency. Cars beat horses because they were cheaper (getting the horse shit off the streets was a side benefit) money rules. The great thing about the free market is that you're always welcome to try to empirically prove that. Build it and see who shows up to buy it. Looks like another niche maker is making a gamble: www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-05/mercedes-to-challenge-bmw-tesla-with-four-car-electric-lineup
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 6, 2016 8:24:42 GMT -5
It seems to me there are a number of opportunities in the electric car market. All we need are a few free market capitalists to start staking their claims. - Charger-a-Go-Go: Roving charger/generator trucks, available and on call at a premium cost for the poor planners who ran out of
gas juice. - Charge Pool App: Connect with other drivers along a planned route using multi-car-in/out connector harnesses that draw from freshly charged, short mileage “boosters.” Payments made to power contributors via smartphone app.
- Inductive (wireless) charger strips running the length of tollways. End your commute with a fully charged battery and a lighter wallet.
And the obvious fix to the current limits of battery technology: really long extension cords.
|
|