ELECTRIC CARS COME OF AGE

Fiedor Report On the News #283 ^ | 8-18-02 | Doug Fiedor

[mamelukesabre]

Yeah, they also had wheels made of steel springs. They did it because they had no other choice, not because it was a good idea.

[wcbtinman]

Without pedals, and that complex control/steering system, how am I gonna eat my burger, talk on the cell phone and drive at the same time? There's no way to use your knees!

[wcbtinman]

"Give us an example of technology the oil companies have "bought up"?

Back in the 70's a guy developed a device that used ultrasound emitters to atomize gasoline into very fine particles and mix them with air. This offered much more complete combustion and offered the promise of a trebeling of typical fuel mileage.

I believe that it was Standard Oil that bought all of the rights, notes and drawings to the process, in return for a substantial check and a lifetime ban on this guy doing any further research into this technology. He was even contractually barred from discussing it.

If anyone cares to look, there was one article in either Hot Rod or Car Craft magazine that had some pictures and a general description of the device and the concept behind it. They got the article out because the guy was a drag racer/engineer, and they got wind of it first because of the guys contacts and interest in the performance enhancing potential of the device.

[kaktuskid]

The Germans ran on synthetic oil made from coal(like S Africa uses today)...it takes more energy to produce alcohol than the energy alcohol produces.

[MainFrame65]

We currently have about 70 million acres in corn, and produce about 140 bushels per acre. Actual yield varies from 35-65 bushels on dry land to over 200 with optimal irrigation. Some of this is used to produce ethanol for fuel. This is not a simple process, because ordinary distillation will only produce about 95% ethanol / 5% water, which must then be further purified for use as fuel. A bushel of corn yields about 2.5 gallons of Ethanol, so on average that gives 340 gallons, or just over 8 barrels per acre.

We use about 21 Million barrels per day (7.5 Billion per year) of petroleum for all purposes, with gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, and heating oil being the largest. The conversion ratio is such that a barrel of crude produces just a little bit MORE than a barrel of lighter weight fuel, but lets ignore that for now.

Replacing 20% of our current petroleum demand, or 1.5 Billion barrels per year, would require about 181 million acres of new average yield land, or 10% greater than the area of Texas, if I did my math right.

[John Jamieson]

Notice he didn't say when or how.

[Fzob]

CO2 of course

http://www.anl.gov/OPA/frontiers96arch/hreform.html

[John Jamieson]

So the end result is that this combination oxydises all of the gasoline just like a regular engine, only costs 200 times as much and is much less effecient. Now I understand. What a great idea!

[Doug Fiedor]

We currently have about 70 million acres in corn, and produce about 140 bushels per acre.

Alcohol for fuel can be produced from ANY biomass. Which means, not just the corn need be used. The whole of the plant may be used. The only reason that is not normally done now is because of very shortsighted government regulations.

The point is, alcohol for fuel is not the same as alcohol for moonshine. Alcohol used for fuel is much easier to make. Trees and grass clippings can be tossed into that mix.

Still, except in a pinch, alcohol will never catch on as a major fuel here. It is too expensive to produce. That is little more than a pipedream of some in government seeking votes and other considerations from corporate farmers.

The coming standard of the automotive industry will be electronic vehicles powered by a fuel cell and a device that generates hydrogen on the fly to power the fuel cell. Most probably, gasoline will be used as the primary fuel because it is readily available. All vehicle manufactures are working towards that end. Within a decade, vehicles using internal combustion motors will probably no longer be sold.

Here's yet another little point: There are full-sized electric sedans on the road today (research cars) that get about 100 MPG. These vehicles can drive cross-country just as any normal vehicle can. And, most can do 0 to 60 a lot faster than my car can.

[Snidely Whiplash]

Pictures...

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=iol1029480022328H600

Cool. Sure wouldn't wanna be driving the bugger in a hailstorm with all that glass, though.

Regards,
Snidely

[boris]

"As far as the driver goes, you treat it just like a regular car."

Until you collide with an SUV and turn into torn wet cardboard.

--Boris

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

4) It is *NOT* zero emission. It will produce water and some kind of carbon droppings.

Someone on a call in radio show mentioned that cars dripping water on the road should make for some interesting winter driving.

[balrog666]

Someone on a call in radio show mentioned that cars dripping water on the road should make for some interesting winter driving.

That *IS* a good one!

[hinckley buzzard]

All the major oil companies are actively involved in fuel cell R&D. They won't have to "buy up" anything.

[MainFrame65]

I do not disagree about biosources, but to the best of my knowledge, corn has the highest ethanol yield. Milo, sorghum, and other crops produce slightly less. The numbers I used actually do consider the use of the entire plant, by way of enzymatic conversion of cellulose to fermentable sugars. There has been some talk of new plant sources with higher ethanol yields, but they do not currently have alternate uses. But ethanol for fuel does require a special kind of distillation, or some other step to remove water, because a mixture of about 95% ethanol with 5% water is eutectic, meaning that its BP is lower than either water or ethanol pure. Too much water for use as fuel.

My real point was that trying to replace, say, 90% of petroleum with ethanol is a pipe dream, and replacing even 20% would change the face of America. 180 million NEW acres assumes average yield, not likely since it implies a significant input of water, which would all have to be found. All of Texas is about 170 million acres, and some of it is already taken.

I think we need to be looking at energy conversion and transportation rather than finding (and using up) new places where nature has stored fossil energy and petrochemicals for us to use, and more use of fixed sources such as nuclear, solar, and others. Gasoline is more efficient for storing and transporting energy than dynamite, and we still buy it for less than drinking water. It has two problems. As we use petroleum, it is a non-renewable resource, and we dump the combustion products (water and CO2) into the atmosphere. At least, nobody has objected to the water vapor, but I believe they would if the CO2 could be eliminated!

I am intrigued by the Sodium Borohydride hydrogen generation system from Millenium Cell Corp., combined with a fuel cell and electric motor drive. A short description can be found at:

http://www.genesis.rutgers.edu/Partners/millenium.html

and the most advanced application is the Chrysler Natrium minivan equipped with this system. Byproducts are water vapor released to the air and sodium borate in water solution, which would have to be retained and recycled to create a usable energy storage and distribution system. Of course, this would require external energy input, perhaps from nuclear or solar sources, for reconversion of the borate to the borohydride. In effect, this would treat it as a chemical battery. Efficiency of the reconversion process, and development of the distribution and recycling system are the other keys to feasibility.

Energy density is reasonable - not as good as gasoline, but better than half as good, considering total conversion throughput to the wheels. For a range similar to my car, the Natrium uses a divided fuel tank 2.5 times as large, and captures the residue in the same tank as the fuel is used.

Neither the fuel nor the residue is flammable or explosive, so safety is improved. And the fuel cell output - electricity - can be actually be used for any purpose.

[hinckley buzzard]

A fuel cell car (either GM or Ford) recently completed a 2500 mile cross country trip successfully.

This technology will bypass the "hybrid" car and not too many years away. The concept has been proven out and all that remains are some engineering problems which can be solved with existing technology.

Stationary fuel cell power generation is entering commercial production now, as a viable form of "distributed generation." The adaptation to transportation will be trickier, to be sure, but unless you
are a really old fart you will get to see it happen.

[Hugin]

I have to say that sounds like a classic urban myth. There would be nothing stopping anyone else from doing the reasearch and putting that same technology out if it were real, unless it was patented. In which case there would be a patent number with a complete description in the US Patent Office which is public record. And the patent would eventually expire. But if you really think about it, if Standard Oil really owned rights to a simple gizmo that would triple milage without reducing power, they could make far more money licensing the technology to automakers than they make selling oil.

[wcbtinman]

"...they could make far more money licensing the technology to automakers than they make selling oil."

And there you would be wrong. First, this is no myth. I saw the device operating on a small block chevy engine in a dyno cell.

Second. High gasoline consumption creates all kinds of sideline benefits for the oil companies. For example: more frequent oil changes/lubrications, emission reduction systems that create higher underhood temperatures that deteriorate rubber products, shorter life for a host of other components that they manufacture part or all of.

I would be willing to bet that they would make far more money from gasoline sales than they ever would from licensing agreements. My local Chevron distributor seems to think the same thing.

[balrog666]

The concept has been proven out and all that remains are some engineering problems which can be solved with existing technology.

In addition to the staggering engineering problems, there is the overwhelming problem of cost. It will never be as cheap as the alternatives which allows the coercive hand of government to create an artificial demand for a second-rate product (see Kalifornia).

[Jack of all Trades]

Sounds like a high tech version of the 200 mpg carburetor myth. I can think of several problems with your example.

1) Sweeping statements usually have hooks in them. Increasing fuel economy is a snap if that's your only criteria, just lower the specific output of the engine, or decrease the effective displacement.

2) Compared to the 70's, today's IC engines perform on a level comparable to the improvements claimed by this device while also increasing specific output. Today, N.A. outputs of 70 to 80 Hp/Liter are common in automobile engines. Two tecnologies are primarily responsible: computer controlled port fuel injection, and FEA (simulation).

3) Fuel atomization by piezo electric drivers is still being developed as a technology. I have no idea of the current state of the art, but I have seen it mentioned in journals over the years. My point is that the fundamental concept has not been buried.

4) It's easy to fake dyno demonstrations