It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apparently, Hybrids arent as good as you thought

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
So far even ultracapacitors are not as good as batteries as energy storage.

And batteries are much worse than chemical storage.

The problem is that it takes a hell of a lot of energy for transportation, and chemical
fuel is by far the most compact and effective way to do this.

I know: I take an electric scooter to work (www.egovehicles.com). After 7 miles
the batteries are virtually completely dead (range decreasing rapidly with battery age
over months). And these are big and heavy, probably about 50 pounds. Newer expensive batteries might be able to do a moderate factor better (less than 10 times better at very best).

That mass of gasoline (10 gallons worth) could and does take far heavier car (2500 lbs versus 125 lbs + 150 lbs rider) to Los Angeles and back. (I live in San Diego). If it had been a Prius, double it.

The problem comes down the basic laws of physics. If you were just armed with the periodic table and thermodynamics you would come up with something pretty damn close to gasoline as the ultimate energy storage substance and device for mobile transportation.




posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

I know: I take an electric scooter to work. After 7 miles the batteries are virtually completely dead (range decreasing rapidly with battery age) . . these are big and heavy probably about 50 pounds. Newer more expensive batteries might be able to do a moderate factor better (not 10 times better at the very best). That mass of gasoline (10 gallons worth) could and does take a far heavier car (2500 lbs versus 125 lbs + 150 lbs rider) to Los Angeles and back. (I live in San Diego). If it had been a Prius, double it. The problem comes down the basic laws of physics. If you were armed with the periodic table and laws of thermodynamics you would come up with something pretty dam close to gasoline as the ultimate energy storage substance and device for mobile transportation. [Edited by Don W]


Which is exactly what the free market accomplished by 1930.


[I’m not a “free market” person unless the market is truly free.] I’ve posted elsewhere that ethanol is only discusd as an alternative fuel because of the love affair between Archer Daniels Midland and Senator Dole. Ethanol is used in high performance vehicles - it won’t ping - but with nitroglycerine added. Unwise in 130 million vehicles. Or a terrorist’s delight.

Let’s face it. Coal fired electric plants are the best way to go. Spend enough money on cleaning up emissions and they will be as ok as any other source of energy. As in Alaska, install ubiquitous electric outlets around a city’s center could make short commutes - 15-20 miles one way - not only possible but in my opinion, the thing of the future. It would take 2 cars, one all electric for short local use and another, a Prius-type, for long hauls.

Coal fired plants beat nuclear power plants if you add the cost of disposal of waste products - or we could give it away to Iran and NK to make nukes - to the nuclear plant’s electric tab, AND if you require some sort of insurance to protect the public from a possible multi-trillion dollar loss should a plant like Three Mile Island actually melt down as in Chernobyl.

Coal, our ace in the hole!


[edit on 4/7/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I would have to agree with donwhite, on the condition that the best scrubbing technology is mandated.

There may be a panacea on the way, in the form of Fusion and Superconducting nanowires, but those breakthroughs are not assured nor are they that near-term.

All coal will do is buy us time though as even that there is not that much left on the earth(only about a few hundred years worth at current consumption)



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

Coal fired plants beat nuclear power plants if you add the cost of disposal of waste products - AND if you require some sort of insurance to protect the public from a possible multi-trillion dollar loss should a plant like Three Mile Island actually melt down as in Chernobyl.

Coal, our ace in the hole!



you should do a search on Accelerator Driven - Subcritical Reactors.

they can transmute high level waste to low level waste and give megawatts of energy in the proccess

Accelerator-driven Transmutation System

Accelerator Driven Systems - Subcritical Reactors

this would be a better use of nuclear and allow coal to be put to use where needed

coal shouldn't be burned for just electricity. if you do low temp coaking of coal you will get nearly a barrel of oil for every ton, plus several thousand cubic feet of fuel gas.

it would be better to use this Oil from Coal --- Free! The Karrick LTC Process and then use the left over coke in the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis-process to produce the needed fuels for transportation.

this would also make it easier to treat and remove such things like sulfer and heavy metals with out putting them to the atmosphere



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

posted by bigx01:

posted by donwhite: “Coal plants beat nuclear power plants if you factor in waste disposal costs and insurance to protect the public from a multi-trillion dollar loss should plants like 3 Mile Island melt down as happened in Chernobyl . .
“ . . you should search Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactors. They can transmute high level waste to low level waste and give megawatts of energy in the process . . this would be a better use of nuclear (waste?) and put coal to use where needed . . coal shouldn't be burned just for electricity . . low temp coking of coal will get nearly a barrel of oil plus several thousand cubic feet of gas from every ton . . “It would be better to use this Oil from Coal - Free! The Karrick LTC Process and use the left over coke in the Fischer Tropsch synthesis-process to produce fuels for transportation. This would also make it easier to treat and remove such things like sulphur and heavy metals with out putting them to the atmosphere . . “ [Edited by Don W]


Right, B/Ox1. On one point, can you elaborate on the process of transmuting waste fuel? As for point two, the conversion of coal to oil don’t, forget this process - or a similar one - furnished 80% of Germany’s fuel needs in WW2. Which early success, by the by, may have led to their later defeat when they failed to press their advantage in the north of Africa in 1941-1942. A relatively unscathed German Army ready to strike the weakly defended south of Russia might well have ended the Battle of Stalingrad - said to have been the turning point of WW2 - the other way?

[edit on 4/8/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
both links have extensive information about ads reactors. the low level waste is in the half life range on 10-100 years vs 10,000 to 20,000 years. you can use waste that is out there today or you can start with fresh fuel and allow the reactor to consume it down to low level waste.

as to coal lquifaction. By the end of the WW2, Nazi Germany produced 75% of its own fuel by means of both the Bergius process and LTC of coal.

of the 3 methods. LTC would be the best process because you would get bbls of oil first before you made liquid fuels out of it. then you could use either the Bergius process or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis-process.

all of these produce co2 as a result, but it is far easier to capture the co2 in this than in a coal fired power plant. once you have bottled up the co2 it can be injected into existing oil fields (US Says CO2 Injection Could Quadruple Oil Reserves ) to increase the ammount withdrawn from fields.

now this all sounds good but in reality it would take years to build a plant and get it up to 100k to 200k bbls a day. probably 5-10 years.

like i said. using coal to make electricity is a poor choice



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This phenomenon is because the vehicle experiences a "flat" mileage, with a Honda/Lexus/Toyota system. The only solution on these cars, is a smaller engine (Impractical.)
These vehicles use maybe the MIXED consumption figures, when driving on a HIGHWAY or lowest fuel consumption mode, but this is not specified. And use even MORE gasoline when under load, because they have to push the 20+ horsepower electric generator around and around to constantly charge heavy heavy batteries.

BMW on the other hand is ready to start producing a capacitor-based system that saves energy while braking and engine-breaking/coasting downhill, and applies this when accelerating the next times. It never wears out. It is rated at about 85 horsepower for the electric engine ALONE... gasoline engine in car is additional to that. And additionally a 15 horsepower (minimum) steam-mechanical 2-circuit system that heats alcohol and water, and makes steam to push a couple of pistons, which act directly on the drive-line, to make gasoline efficiency around 50% or higher, as opposed to a standard vehicle with maybe 20-30% efficiency. And the before mentioned asian hybrids which make maybe 30% efficiency also.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5

I also wonder why O3 is not used in IC engines that have EFI and can automatically very the air/fuel ratio. Is the exhust alot more harmful if O3 is used?

But back on topic, I think that article is all "spin".



Umm, Are you talking about Ozone...?

WELL, UMM, IT IS DEADLY TO ALL LIFE, for one.

And how would you make thousands of liters per minutes, while driving, to put into the combustion process? a bottle is NOT good enough. Even a lung-patient goes through a 20 liter tank of oxygen (that's 4 feet tall and 50 lbs...) in about 20 minutes... your car would croak in the driveway, trying to get out.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5

I also wonder why O3 is not used in IC engines that have EFI and can automatically very the air/fuel ratio.

pure oxygen either o2 or o3 has a very profound result when exposed to hydrocarbons. any exposure to hydrocarbon results in combustion even if it is outside your combustion chamber.

everything would have to be oil free otherwise there would be instant combustion. ask anyone who has ever assembled the fittings on an o/a torch if you should use grease or oil on the fittings


XL5

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
No, I mean, produce O3 with UV arc lamps, it would not be pure O3 being fed into the air intake. It wouldn't be pure O3, it wouldn't make "normal" things combust.
I just wonder if the added engine power is lower then the electrical power needed. Pure O3 would work in a fuel cell if it didn't eat it.
I still think super capacitors are the way to go.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join