I Shall Call It "total Enviormental Impact!"

[Craig]

Just a thought, but Mr. Smitty901's last post with the free charging and free batteries, may have been intended to be taken with a truck load of SALT. Smitty feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Had me going. I thought, no way he thinks this.

 

[CheeseheadEarl]

I'm predicting that space age materials will facilitate compressing air to such extremes that such will replace gas for local commuting. Gas and Diesel will continue to be the long trip fuel. These compressed air tank materials are safe in that they don't explode with impacts of accidents. They just leak out and decompress by the nature of their construction and structure. If you've ever seen a lithium ion battery burn or seen how simple it is to ignite you would not want one in your car. LOL Someone aught to invent a trigger that would turn Lithium ion batteries into space age hand grenades. LOL

You neglect to mention how we're supposed to compress that air. Regardless of power source, compressors are not very efficient. The 150 hp electric compressor in the factory I work in provides a good part of the winter heat from the huge heat exchangers it needs to run. 8 months out of the year, it's wasted energy.

 

[carzes]

You neglect to mention how we're supposed to compress that air. Regardless of power source, compressors are not very efficient. The 150 hp electric compressor in the factory I work in provides a good part of the winter heat from the huge heat exchangers it needs to run. 8 months out of the year, it's wasted energy.

compressors are not very efficient so far. but if huge power generating stations are vastly more efficient than point-of-use power generation, then maybe the same for compressing air? And at those large compressor stations the heat energy from running motors and squeezing air could be possibly used for other things like heating homes and greenhouses in the winter and might even be hot enough to boil water for steam. I dunno, just speculating....

 

[Jambe]

More oil has just been discovered this year in America than has ever been pumped in America from the beginning of time. .

Three or four years ago I was quite involved in Peak Oil discussions. Most of what I knew then has been forgotten.
Some of what I remember is that Peak Oil was reached in the US in the 70s. I won't dispute your claim that there may be a new peak but I'd like to see the numbers.
Now, the US uses about 20 million barrels a day, of which 12 million barrels are locally produced.
Since the beginning of oil production in the US that is a pretty big number, and I am suspicious of your claim that more than that has been discovered this year.
Do you have a source?

 

[Jay3wheel]

compressors are not very efficient so far. but if huge power generating stations are vastly more efficient than point-of-use power generation, then maybe the same for compressing air? And at those large compressor stations the heat energy from running motors and squeezing air could be possibly used for other things like heating homes and greenhouses in the winter and might even be hot enough to boil water for steam. I dunno, just speculating....

This is beginning to sound more like hot air than a solution.

 

[Folks]

You neglect to mention how we're supposed to compress that air. Regardless of power source, compressors are not very efficient. The 150 hp electric compressor in the factory I work in provides a good part of the winter heat from the huge heat exchangers it needs to run. 8 months out of the year, it's wasted energy.

It's simply wrong to look as conventional methods of compression. A much higher psi capability is part of the technology prediction.

 

[Folks]

Three or four years ago I was quite involved in Peak Oil discussions. Most of what I knew then has been forgotten.
Some of what I remember is that Peak Oil was reached in the US in the 70s. I won't dispute your claim that there may be a new peak but I'd like to see the numbers.
Now, the US uses about 20 million barrels a day, of which 12 million barrels are locally produced.
Since the beginning of oil production in the US that is a pretty big number, and I am suspicious of your claim that more than that has been discovered this year.
Do you have a source?

You're very polite in the way you've asked your question. Thank you. I share with you how easy it is to get caught up in the idea of Peak oil. The recent discoveries are kind of like you and I finding a lost Pirate treasure that dwarfs the Bank of England. LOL Same situation, in that no one will believe us on that either.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...KBPFNR3Kq3NVks9YVScESaQ&bvm=bv.78677474,d.aWw

 

[tonyspumoni]

How come none of you EV futurists called me out on the inherent parsitic heat losses of ICE's? I was waiting for that one.

The best ICE's are about 40% efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical energy, with the rest lost as heat. EV's are probably around 90% efficient, since there remains some heat loss during charging. Best guesses are that peak ICE efficiency given current designs is 45% or about half what can be acheived using electricity as a motive force.

I did some digging today and it looks like the most optimistic estimates are that EV's will comprise 30% of the light duty vehicles by 2050. Extractable lithium looks like the rate limiting step, though there remain concerns that upgrading electrical grid capacity and slow adoption of alternative feedstocks for power generation will also be limiting.

 

[carzes]

(salutes)
Thank you for getting my point.
And I actually understand the limitations, and accept them.
The EV infrastructure is limited and growing fast.
Price point comes into play and happens quick. Real quick.
Smart phones went from almost none to standard equipment in 4 years because several technologies finally meshed. Cheaper CPU's memory, SSD's, and LCD/LED screens made a useful product at an acceptable price point.
The power supply is the only remaining obstacle.
Think of the Tesla as the Phone 1 a few years back.
And don't give up on unusual technologies just yet. Caps (or some say super caps) can easily make big jumps with a single breakthrough.

I think EV's have a deffinite role to play in the future, but I think they'll be only one technology used. As far as the whole infrastructure/where to charge them and from what, I think it's all pretty academic really. There are a million ways to generate electricity, and the only questions are how much resources we have to put in, and how much we'll get out. Charging a battery with it once we've got it is hardly a great challenge of our century. My question remains; If lithium batteries are the best we've got and we want to go to an all EV world, Is there enough lithium? Sure we can recycle it, but we have to put batteries in a vehicle that replaces EVERY car on the planet, plus the MANY more that will be added between now and then. Seriously, I doubt we have that much. Also, I would really like someone to actually address the issue of cold weather operation. I'm not against EV at all, but we got to be real, It WON'T WORK in a northern winter. Not unless a quantum leap in batteries power density occurs. 'course the rural north is where it's coldest and the challenge of vehicle range is greatest at the same time. EV's will not take hold in the north. We will need a combination solution.
And we can't point to microelectronics as a predictor of the future of everything. There is a big, BIG difference in packing more computational power behind a prettier screen every year and using that trend to say cars of any kind MUST get cheaper and/or better ll the time. Granted, the more copies of something you make, the cheaper you can make it, but there's a limit in raw materials. A car is not a computer. It's a big metal box with a big metal engine, and a complex metal transmission. The cost of working all that metal into chapel will not be 1 tenth next decade what it costs today, despite they will have another 100 fold increase in computer capacity between now and then. The price of goods like steel and motors and batteries and labor fluctuate according to market forces, not by More's law.
I am all for exploring new technologies, but Supercaps I have little faith in. Sure a huge breakthrough could happen, but then again they might discover tomorrow that we can derive unlimited energy harnessing the brain energy in internet forums. I'm not putting my money on that one either. Can we build a better battery? Sure. Can we build a battery that's a million times better? probably not. And for Supercaps that is what we would need, a million-fold improvement in power density, and short of a miricle , it's NOT gonna happen. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to eat crow on that prediction. It would solve a LOT of problems, but I'm pretty sure based on 20+ years in electronics that this dog ain't gonna hunt.
That's why I stick to my multiple-source prediction for future of transportation. No one solution is presently looking like it will save us all. So with the game in the current lineup, there's no one winner.

 

[carzes]

whatever the direction of your vote- voting = democracy =go for it!!

TheConstitution recognizes that an INFORMED electorate is essential to liberty. Voting in ignorance is CONTRARY to the greater good, and opens opportunities for coruption and greed to undermine our intended system of governance; one that is held accountable to WE-the -people. It is our civic duty to cast an informed vote. If you can't do that, then do the next best thing: don't vote.