What are your thoughts on the Car of the Future? Should it be ethanol, biodiesel, electric--- all of the above, none of the above... or nothing at all?
Quite agree; there will be a gradual reduction in vehicle and engine size as expensive gas and the new CAFE standards take hold. Plug-in hybrids, and short haul electric cars will put a further dent in demand.
Agree that biofuels cannot make more than a 5-10% maximum constribution. Brazil is a unique situation with nearly 40% of its gasoline from sugar cane ethanol.
However, the poplulation growth will mean more vehicles, so total liquid fuel demand may only decrease marginally, but at least it won't grow.
People will respond to a cold turkey change if it is forced on them by dire necessity. Rationig and forced recycling during WW II is a good example.
Much higher pump prices and massive investment in urban rapid transit will make a real difference. In other words, become more like Europe.
In the next 50 years I think cars will continue to use the internal combustion engine. The fuel will get more expensive, eventually crude oil sources for gasoline will become depleted to the point where converting coal to liquid fuel will become economically feasible and that will extend the life of the IC engine. The only thing that *might* change that is a radical development in electrical storage batteries that will allow them to either store a lot more dense energy, or recharge much more quickly, or both. Biodiesel, if it can be produced from sources that won't impinge on food crops, may be a new source but that's still using an IC engine. That liquid coal fuel could well be a diesel fuel, too.
Germany during WW II and South Africa under the Apartheit Embargo both made gasoline from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process. With oil at $117/barrel and rising, this will soon be economical, but not environmentally friendly.
There are ways to make the process "clean", but the total overall cost has not been determined accurately yet. At least the money would be spent inside the country, and create jobs and further economic activity.
However, burning coal in a clean power plant, and using the electricy in plug-in hybrids is more efficient for thsoe that can use a plug-in hybrid.
However, burning coal in a clean power plant, and using the electricy in plug-in hybrids is more efficient for thsoe that can use a plug-in hybrid.
Possibly true, but not necessarily relevant. People won't switch to pure electric due to range issues, even if in reality there isn't a range problem for 90% of their driving they'll still want something they can refuel in minutes anywhere in the country. Plug-in hybrids will still use an IC engine of some sort. I'm sure we will see smaller, more fuel efficient, cars and various ways to squeeze more from a gallon of fuel as the price goes up. I'm just saying the IC engine will still be at the heart of them.
Again, some breakthrough battery technology could change that, but I'm not betting on it.
Agree; a pure electric car is a niche vehicle, such as the Tesla, or a modified golf cart. Most electric vehicles will be plug-in hybrids as soon as the price of lithium batteries comes down.
China is introducing (China only) a plug-in hybrid this year. It is made by a battrery company that bought a small car company.
I ran across a very interesting concept that is in the works in France and they claim to be coming to the US in 2010. The Air Car, a vehicle propelled by compressed Air. By using compressed air instead of batteries, a vehicle that runs on air, achieves over 100 gas-equivalent mpg and over 90 mph, has zero to low C02 emissions and seats six. Why wait to develop battery technology when all we really need is carbon fibre air tanks and the engine developed by Motor Development International. Take a look at www.zeropollutionmotors.us If the technology works it could be an amazing development!!
It's really not that amazing. Compressed air is an energy storage method, similar to a battery. An energy conversion process is still required to produce the compressed air, such as an IC engine, electric motor, fuel cell, etc. Additionally, compressing air is not an efficient process; there is significant heat loss in the compressor, which makes batteries a more practical and efficient energy storage method.
How about electrified roadways? Sort of a high tech version of the way power is delivered to electric trains and amusement park bumper car rides. Now battery technology would not matter. These cars could also have a backup engine for roads not electified. It wouldn't be simple, it's hard to figure out how to provide a ground unless the road surface was steel.
Another idea, cities criss-crossed with high speed chair lifts like ski resorts use. Probably won't happen because they aren't handicapped rider friendly but wouldn't it be a fun way to commute across town?
I think the Car of the Future will be a moving target in the sense the infrastructure will have to be developed in parallel with the technology. Right now hybreds seem the best choice, but as battery technology and cost improve then "pure electrics" could move into the preferred choice. Eventually as hydrogen technology becomes feasible in the U.S. then that may become the best choice. This evolution could take 50 years or more. There could be regional choices depending on the driving habits and other factors. Right now I feel the country needs to commit ourselves to reverse the trend pervasive over the 20 to 30 years that bigger and more powerful vehicles are better.
I enjoyed the programme, it was informational, educational & entertainonal (sic). I was curious & disappointed that major questions about electrics & hybrids weren't addressed.
1)What is the battery's life span?
2)How much is replacement? (27th April 08 - I just read an article in the Austin paper written by the owner of a 2003 Toyota Prius. He stated that a replacement battery costs $3,500)
3)What do we do with the dead batteries? What is the likely cost?
I missed any mention of clean, efficient diesels as definitely part of the future car scenario. Probably this was too dull and unglamorous for a television program. In fact a diesel hybrid is incredbly efficient, and all the infrastructure is already in place. I'm sure Craig58 wwould agree this to be a proven way to get more energy out of a barrel of oil.
As difficult as it is to comprehend the US public (let alone the global community at large!) being weaned off petroleum, no one has addressed the demands of the military. I strongly believe that the government will refuse to provide resources to the public, hoarding for national defence demands. Only our submarines & carriers will be operable without significant changes; but what use are carriers without JP5? Whatever shortages are looming in our future from resource depletion, the crunch is going to come much sooner than anyone presently seems to anticipate & will be preceded with "The needs of the military require..."
Question: Why did you not show alternative Engines in your Nova presentations?
I know you personally may not have chosen the agenda on the Nova show but I must emphatically tell you that there are better engines or significant modifications to engines than the 100 year old Kettering Design. Language in the show said things like “100 years old” and so on. This is the Kettering Internal Combustion Engine. We know that adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Well this is not so when it comes to innovation, try and buy a brand new Typewriter or mechanical calculator or get on repaired.
My point! In 1990 I worked with Doug Brackett in South Portland, Main and some bright young Combustion Engineers from MIT to refine Doug’s Engine design. He had several patents then and many more since then but his design was truly remarkable. Like the PC is to the Typewriter, the Bracket Engine will be or should be compared to the Kettering Engine. Most of the work if not all the work to improve engine efficiency has been in the Manifold, outside the engine, and to the automobile chassis and frame to make it lighter and stronger. The basic deficiency with the Kettering design is it does not fire at top-dead-center (TDC). It must partially decompress to the firing angle to provide the push down combustion. Doug’s engine allows firing at TDC. This opens the door to using lower Octane fuels like methanol, grain or cellulosic alcohol, vegetable oil, and the often ignored Surfactant-Water-Alcohol-Gasoline mixtures. Firing at TDC allows the fuel to detonate instead of combust. Detonation is far more efficient than Combustion. This is what the Diesel Engine does; Detonate the fuel, but the Diesel also suffers from efficiency problems because the cylinder must be larger, and slower turning, resulting in unneeded mass and slower RPM, and an adverse Power/Torque Curve.
By causing detonation at TDC, the Brackett Engine converts much more of the heat and therefore the fuel to motion, reducing exhaust gas temperature (EGT) and increasing consumption reducing partially consumed hydrocarbon emissions. Lowering the EGT eliminates Nitrogen Dioxide generation, eliminating the need for a catalytic converter.
Another premium of the Bracket design is the lubrication system for the Crank is closed or sealed, no combustion products are introduced to the Lubricants. This significantly increases Engine life and reduces repair and replacement.
Lower EGT allows ceramics to be used for Engine construction because there are no lingering high temperatures.
The Engine and the cylinders can be made flat where the piston is a thin brick. The engine can be only inches thick like a box so it may be placed under the cab between the axles.
As you may know, a combustion Engine is like a Compressor but in reverse. Because the Brackett Engine does not contaminate the lubrication system, the engine can house a compressor in the same block/crank assembly. This compressor may in turn move compressed air into the manifold to further increase efficiency.
There are many more premiums of this design but these are the high points.
Tom & Ray tried to do an informative Nova show for Earth Day, but they missed a really important Low-Carbon fuel vehicle of the future, clean burning, CNG or CH4.
But Tom & Ray obviously slept during Organic Chemistry 101.
On last week's radio show they showed their woeful ignorance by not being very helpful to the caller from North Carolina, by confusing Propane (C3H8) with Methane (CH4), see thread: PROPANE TANK UNDER CAR.
Had they done their chemistry lesson, they would know and understand the LOW-CARBON benefits of CNG-powered vehicles:
Compressed Natural Gas has a proven track record as a Clean Fuel for vehicles in many countries around the world.
The World's Greenest production (ICE) vehicle ever measured by the EPA is the Honda Civic GX (inherently low emissions, with near zero pollution (AT-PZEV) , now in it's 10th year of production.
Heck, even Jay Leno's done TV show's on the benefits of methane-powered, natural gas vehicles.
Tom and Ray blew it by ignoring this proven CLEAN FUEL technology, and the important future transportation
role CNG will play.
CNG is the stepping-stone to the NO-CARBON, Hydrogen future.
CNG is a domestic fuel (no war required). Can you say, "Petroleum displacement?"
CNG is plentiful and less expensive (Known North American reserves are estimated in excess of 100 years), CNG could even be totally sustainable using bio-methane reclamation.
CNG-fueled vehicles have 25% less CO2 footprint compared to gasoline, due to the fuel's low carbon content.
Come on Tom & Ray, do your homework. Start by taking a look at: www.cngchat.com
Absolutely! I too noted their lack of familiararity with CNG with some dismay. I remember seeing a contraption sold at the state fair in the ‘50s to compress natural gas at home to run in your car, truck and tractor. Conversion kits and tanks were quite inexpensive and it was touted as burning so clean one never had to change their oil… How slow we learn! Also, Tacoma, WA busses have run on CNG for around 20 years! I believe The free hybrid busses on 16th St. in Denver run on CNG as well. But watch out! Now the oil & gas concerns want to import LNG (Liquid Natural Gas - an inefficient, expensive and dangerous process) from Russia, among other places, landing it near the mouth of the pristine Columbia River, re-gasifying it there and piping it to California. Oh give me a break!
That (importing LNG)will be necesary since the US is also running short on natuyral gas supply from the Lower 48 states. The Alaska gas pipeline will go a long way to reducing that shortage, but it will take more than 6 years to build.
Liquifying natural gas and transporting it to markets is actually quite effficient; gas by pipeline from Alaska will be MORE EXPENSIVE, but also more secure. And it's actually quite safe, no more dangerous than handling other hydrocarbons. Worldwide, LNG is really big business. Tiny Malaysia owns more than 20 LNG tankers, giant floating thermos bottles, to transport its LNG to Korea and Japan.
Most of the world's natural gas deposits are found where the consumers don't live, so Russian and Algerian gas supplies much of Europe and LNG from the Middle East supplies Japan.
We certainly are not running out of domestic natural gas. The largest domestic gas source ever discovered is just now being developed. It is 5,000 to 10,000 square miles, in Texas.
Guys,
I just watched the Nova program on PBS about alternative/environmentally friendly car technology. It's obvious that we as a society will have to retool, as its obvious we have polluted the environment for decades too long. We cannot continue on this way, without far reaching consequences to our environment, health, and other issues. As China and India become more prosperous, they too will join the fray. I have a few suggestions: what if you combined some of the great ideas presented on NOVA, for instance, a car with carbon fiber body panels for better strength and lighter weight...would not have to worry about door dings, and hail damage, fender benders, etc. any more, and doesn't compromise on passenger roominess! Incorporate solar panels on the hood and roof of the car that would send solar energy to a storeage device. As backup, you could also use electric power. Solar would provide a continual charge, and when darkenss or clouds obscured solar, electrical techology could be utilized. Here is the problem, I feel. According to one of the experts, there are 170,000 gas stations here in the US. Big business would want to utilize some other source of fuel that must be purchased every day. Otherwise, what's in it for them? Like Tucker, if you build a better mousetrap, there will be many interested parties, such as special interest groups, etc., that will try to squander the technology. It's obvious to me, that we must harnass natural forms of energy that do not cause emissions problems, such as wind, solar and hydro-electric. Nuclear technology is rediculous, because what do you do with the radioactive waste? Bury it in salt domes? What if an earthquakes rupture the domes, or you have cave ins and these events cause leakage? What about seepage into the underground springs and water supply? Ethanol causes only 25% less emissions, but you still have emissions, and have to grow a WHOLE lot of corn! You can build a better gasoline engine, but you are still faced with the same problems, just not as much of it. If a gasoline engine is 20% efficient, and electrical is 85% efficient, and it causes no harmful side-effects, it is a no-brainer. I think it's time we ditch our nostalgia. We can still produce some hip looking cars with new technology, and make them even better than before. The end result is that in 10 years, we could potentially change the world.
