quote:It is highly uncertain that synthetic hydrogen can ever be established as a universal energy carries. Electricity from renewable sources will be the source energy in a sustainably organized future. The direct distribution of electricity to the consumer is three to four times more efficient than its conversion to hydrogen by electrolysis of water, packaging and transport of synthetic energy carrier to the consumer and its conversion back to electricity with efficient fuel cells. By laws of physics, hydrogen economy can never compete with an "electron economy".
But the laws of physics cannot be changed with further research, investments or political decisions. A sustainable future energy harvested from renewable sources (nuclear energy is not sustainable!) must be distributed and used with the highest efficiency. A wasteful hydrogen economy does not meet the criteria of sustainability. As a result, a viable free-market hydrogen infrastructure will never be established and fuel cells for hydrogen may not be needed. For all applications electricity from hydrogen fuel cells have to compete with the source electricity used to make hydrogen.
I strongly agree with this. It's nice that hydrogen doesn't pollute, but it's absurdly inefficient. The future fuel for vehicles must be electricity -- the infrastructure already exists, the technology's astoundingly advanced, the fuel's cheap, the pollution's nonexistant, and the recent advances in battery technology might even allow the electric vehicle to replace almost all gasoline traffic in the United States.
As far as fuel for power plants goes, though, I'm at a loss. Fusion's apparently as far away as it ever was, and fission -- as the article repeats -- can't sustain us forever. Coal's dirty, and solar's inefficient (unless done on a house-by-house basis, which might help drive American homes at least nearer to grid-independent energy usage). Any thoughts?
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
But if we spend years telling people hydrogen is the way to go and ignore everything else, we're stuck with oil during the interim. Who would want that to ha......uh oh.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote: recent advances in battery technology
There have also notably been advances in capacitor technology I believe - just to further bolster your point.
Bio-diesel has always seemed like a decent near term alternative-ish fuel source. Infrastructure currently supports it, it's good for farmers and the farm industry economically, has close-enough-to-zero net carbon emissions, and can help recycle what would normally be waste (used cooking oils and such). It's no permanent solution but it can help relieve the burden on other energy sources a bit.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Fission may not sustain us forever, but one hopes that it will last long enough for us to figure out that fusion trick. I think it's currently the best option we have.
--j_k
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I don't like double posting, but --
quote:Bio-diesel has always seemed like a decent near term alternative-ish fuel source. Infrastructure currently supports it, it's good for farmers and the farm industry economically, has close-enough-to-zero net carbon emissions, and can help recycle what would normally be waste (used cooking oils and such). It's no permanent solution but it can help relieve the burden on other energy sources a bit.
Brazil's done some interesting stuff with E85, I hear. I hope we could repeat the same thing in the US. Even though it produces carbon dioxide, it would do wonders for our foreign policy.
--j_k
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Interestingly enough, Brazilian ethanol has an import duty of roughly 100-150% which prevents it from serving as a cheap starter source for the fuel to catch on. Add to this farming subsidies making American ethanol production inefficient from a business standpoint (ie subsidies prop up raw ethanol material,usually corn, prices which ups ethanol costs and makes it uncompetitive when compared to fossil fuels) and it's not surprising the US hasn't jumped on the bandwagon. While I'm no free market-ista by any means it seems like a shame.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Solar as SPS isn't inefficient. Well, they'd probably need to privatise space first. And this is the Space Age after all. Seems like the way to go to me.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Just thought I'd mention that while electrolysis of water is inneficient, scientists are looking into different, more efficient methods to produce Hydrogen.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Amen Lalo, I've been saying this for years. Fussion can take us significantly farther than its usually given credit for, assuming that we allow it to be developed to allow it. Look up the thread from a couple of months ago where this was discussed, or just look up the Scientific American article from the same time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, Boris, you can be sure that the trusty American pioneering spirit will have those lawmakers look at all the options, hear what their constituents have to say, check the figures, look at alternatives, and then do whatever benefits them finanacially, in the short term.
Elliot was quite right.
This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends This is the way the world ends Not with a bang, but a wimper
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Electric cars might work in the city, for commuters. Provided an electric vehicle could handle 30 miles per day, give or take 10 miles, it would satisfy my needs.
However,
I'd like to see the electric car, not hydrogen based, that can provide for transportation in rural areas. Long trips. What happens when I want to drive home to see the parents? Six hours in an electric car...is that even possible? At 70 MPH?
I want to believe you...but show me the car. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: Electric cars might work in the city, for commuters. Provided an electric vehicle could handle 30 miles per day, give or take 10 miles, it would satisfy my needs.
However,
I'd like to see the electric car, not hydrogen based, that can provide for transportation in rural areas. Long trips. What happens when I want to drive home to see the parents? Six hours in an electric car...is that even possible? At 70 MPH?
I want to believe you...but show me the car.
We went over the electric car earlier -- but here's a link to Wikipedia discussing fuel mileage.
quote:The range of a BEV depends greatly on the number and type of batteries used, and the performance demands of the driver. The weight and type of vehicle also has an impact just as it does on the mileage of traditional vehicles. Conversions usually use lead-acid batteries because they are the most available and inexpensive, such conversions generally have 20 to 50 miles (30 to 80 km) of range and are built to satisfy the drivers' individual needs. Production EVs with lead-acid batteries are capable of up to 80 miles (130 km) per charge. NiMH chemistries have high energy density and can deliver up to 120 miles (200 km) of range. Lithium ion equipped EVs have been claimed in press releases to have 250-300 miles (400-500 km) of range per charge. [4] Finding the delicate balance of range vs. performance, battery capacity vs. weight, and battery type vs. cost challenges every EV manufacturer. EVs can also use pusher trailers or genset trailers in order to function as a hybrid vehicle for occasions when unlimited range is desired without the additional weight during normal short range use. The vehicle becomes an internal combustion vehicle when utilizing the trailer, but it allows the greater range that may be needed for limited times while making the advantages of the BEV available for most shorter trips.
For additional range, genset trailers or pusher trailers are sometimes used, forming a type of hybrid vehicle.
quote:Thousands of EVs are registered across the country. New battery technology gives full-function EVs ranges of 80-120 miles per charge traveling at highway speeds.
Actually, the entire Wikipedia article merits a read. I love that site.
And as advanced as current batteries are, they're going to be supplanted within a decade by the development of nanotubes, articles here and here. Notable points:
quote:The LEES invention would increase the storage capacity of existing commercial ultracapacitors by storing electrical fields at the atomic level.
Although ultracapacitors have been around since the 1960s, they are relatively expensive and only recently began being manufactured in sufficient quantities to become cost-competitive. Today you can find ultracapacitors in a range of electronic devices, from computers to cars.
However, despite their inherent advantages -- a 10-year-plus lifetime, indifference to temperature change, high immunity to shock and vibration and high charging and discharging efficiency -- physical constraints on electrode surface area and spacing have limited ultracapacitors to an energy storage capacity around 25 times less than a similarly sized lithium-ion battery.
The LEES ultracapacitor has the capacity to overcome this energy limitation by using vertically aligned, single-wall carbon nanotubes -- one thirty-thousandth the diameter of a human hair and 100,000 times as long as they are wide. How does it work? Storage capacity in an ultracapacitor is proportional to the surface area of the electrodes.
Today's ultracapacitors use electrodes made of activated carbon, which is extremely porous and therefore has a very large surface area. However, the pores in the carbon are irregular in size and shape, which reduces efficiency. The vertically aligned nanotubes in the LEES ultracapacitor have a regular shape, and a size that is only several atomic diameters in width. The result is a significantly more effective surface area, which equates to significantly increased storage capacity.
The new nanotube-enhanced ultracapacitors could be made in any of the sizes currently available and be produced using conventional technology.
"This configuration has the potential to maintain and even improve the high performance characteristics of ultracapacitors while providing energy storage densities comparable to batteries," Schindall said. "Nanotube-enhanced ultracapacitors would combine the long life and high power characteristics of a commercial ultracapacitor with the higher energy storage density normally available only from a chemical battery."
quote:Rechargable and disposable batteries use a chemical reaction to produce energy. "That's an effective way to store a large amount of energy," he says, "but the problem is that after many charges and discharges ... the battery loses capacity to the point where the user has to discard it."
Schindall Battery Researcher But capacitors contain energy as an electric field of charged particles created by two metal electrodes. Capacitors charge faster and last longer than normal batteries. The problem is that storage capacity is proportional to the surface area of the battery's electrodes, so even today's most powerful capacitors hold 25 times less energy than similarly sized standard chemical batteries.
The researchers solved this by covering the electrodes with millions of tiny filaments called nanotubes. Each nanotube is 30,000 times thinner than a human hair. Similar to how a thick, fuzzy bath towel soaks up more water than a thin, flat bed sheet, the nanotube filaments increase the surface area of the electrodes and allow the capacitor to store more energy. Schindall says this combines the strength of today's batteries with the longevity and speed of capacitors.
"It could be recharged many, many times perhaps hundreds of thousands of times, and ... it could be recharged very quickly, just in a matter of seconds rather than a matter of hours," he says.
This technology has broad practical possibilities, affecting any device that requires a battery. Schindall says, "Small devices such as hearing aids that could be more quickly recharged where the batteries wouldn't wear out; up to larger devices such as automobiles where you could regeneratively re-use the energy of motion and therefore improve the energy efficiency and fuel economy."
\many of these links thanks to Glenn Arnold \\thanks Glenn Arnold
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That sounds exciting: An ultra-capacitor instead of a battery.
Solves the distance problem as well, because now all that is needed is a gas-station style energy pump to recharge the capacitor in a matter of minutes or seconds. Imagine the cost advantage too- because these capacitors effectively solve the battery diminusion over time that is a problem for Evs and Hybrids.
This would be SO awesome. I would trade my car in and buy one if it were available.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hemp.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Two questions. With nanotubes being so thin, can they survive highway vibrations and minor collisions?
Maybe I missed the link for it, but when will the first nanotube capacitor electric vehicle be available in the US? and which company is going to bring it to us first?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Before we jump off of the hydrogen bandwagon, shouldn't we be a little bit worried that an article underwritten by an electric company is giving short shrift to the possibility of hydrogen power?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:solar's inefficient (unless done on a house-by-house basis, which might help drive American homes at least nearer to grid-independent energy usage)
Solar's inefficiecies can't be overcome, as far as I know, and they have little to do with the distribution. The inefficiency lies in the semiconductor material used in the individual cells, which release charged particles when struck by sunlight. We just can't find any material that gives more than 23% efficiency. When I was in school a few years ago, the hope was that one day we'd be able to get up to 25% efficiency.
But until we find better material, I believe photovoltaics is running in place. Now, we can certainly find improvements in the distribution and storage aspects, but the limiting factor is the semiconductor material.
Houses powered by solar panels aren't usually taken off of the grid, either. Just because there's no way to plan for a few cloudy weeks in a solar powered house, most homeowners stay on the grid in case of emergencies. It's also a good way to divest yourself of any extra energy, by selling it back to the utility company.
Lastly, solar homes require a large and expensive battery array to store the energy. As battery technology continues to advance, this will become one of the strengths of the tech and not one of the weaknesses, I think.
I personally am hoping for more advances in wind, tide, and hydroelectric power. I'd also like to see some more research in solar power, only instead of just converting the sunlight to electricity also trying to use the heat and light from the sun to heat and light homes. The stuff in this area right now is pretty low tech, and I think it could be a viable option in a lot of places (the US southwest, notably).
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cavalier: Interestingly enough, Brazilian ethanol has an import duty of roughly 100-150% which prevents it from serving as a cheap starter source for the fuel to catch on. Add to this farming subsidies making American ethanol production inefficient from a business standpoint (ie subsidies prop up raw ethanol material,usually corn, prices which ups ethanol costs and makes it uncompetitive when compared to fossil fuels) and it's not surprising the US hasn't jumped on the bandwagon. While I'm no free market-ista by any means it seems like a shame.
Indeed. Personally, I'd like to see some federal action to support fuels like ethanol. I find myself wondering what it will take to convince them that waiting until other nations can strangle the US with oil prices is a bad idea.
It would be nice to be energy independent (or more likely, less energy dependent) for a change.
--j_k
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:Originally posted by Cavalier: Interestingly enough, Brazilian ethanol has an import duty of roughly 100-150% which prevents it from serving as a cheap starter source for the fuel to catch on. Add to this farming subsidies making American ethanol production inefficient from a business standpoint (ie subsidies prop up raw ethanol material,usually corn, prices which ups ethanol costs and makes it uncompetitive when compared to fossil fuels) and it's not surprising the US hasn't jumped on the bandwagon. While I'm no free market-ista by any means it seems like a shame.
Indeed. Personally, I'd like to see some federal action to support fuels like ethanol. I find myself wondering what it will take to convince them that waiting until other nations can strangle the US with oil prices is a bad idea.
It would be nice to be energy independent (or more likely, less energy dependent) for a change.
--j_k
Interestingly enough, just yesterday the city council of Portland, Oregon unanimously approved a new ordinance (to take effect next year) that will require ALL gas stations in the greater Portland area to provide Bio-Diesel and Ethanol gasoline.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
Ok there are tons of options here for commuters, but what kind of impact would this have on the cost of shipping?
Can electric motors be used in big 18 wheelers pulling thousands of pounds of trade goods?
If so, then that is cool. If not then what would the effect of moving the majority of fueling stations from gasoline to hydrogen be on the shipping industry? How do you think it would change the prices of everyday products?
I have no clue as to the answers to those questions, but I am sure someone here has looked into this...
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:many of these links thanks to Glenn Arnold \\thanks Glenn Arnold
You're welcome.
Another option not yet listed here is non-hydrogen fuel cells. Fuel cells can run on methanol, ethanol or even gasoline. You still wind up with an electric vehicle, but it's more thermally efficient than fueling an ICE with a liquid fuel.
As I understand it, there are two ways to do this, one is to run the fuel cell very hot, so the fuel remains in the vapor state, and the other is to use an on-board catalytic reformer to convert the liquid fuel into CO and H2. Both of these options require more heat on startup to get the fuel cell going, compared to an H2 fuel cell. They are also pretty large to fit in a vehicle. I'm pretty sure ballard systems has had a van running the reformer unit for a while.
quote:You still wind up with an electric vehicle, but it's more thermally efficient than fueling an ICE with a liquid fuel.
Really? I had no idea. I know that methanol fuel cells for laptops are in the consumer testing stage right now, but I never imagined they were more efficient for locomotion than ICEs.
Cool.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Interestingly enough, just yesterday the city council of Portland, Oregon unanimously approved a new ordinance (to take effect next year) that will require ALL gas stations in the greater Portland area to provide Bio-Diesel and Ethanol gasoline.
The cynic in me wonders which of the council members sons grows a lot of corn
Seriously though, I think that's awesome. I really hate the thought of it, but sometimes it really seems necessary for the government to have to step in and do stuff like this.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I know that methanol fuel cells for laptops are in the consumer testing stage right now
And how awesome is that, by the way? I can't wait, personally.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Boy, I hadn't heard about the laptop thing. That's quite a jump from the stuff I had read about. If it's true I wonder how close methanol powered cars can be to production (although the fueling infrastructure is still a major issue)
As far as ICE's are concerned, a gasoline powered ICE driven car is between 6% to 15% thermally efficient. Nominal efficiency is about 8%, so 92% goes out the radiator and the tailpipe. That really shouldn't be hard to beat.
An electric motor is somewhere on the other end of the spectrum, like 90% efficient or better, depending on how it's loaded.
My memory told me that fuel cells were something like 60% efficient, but wikipedia has a chart on this page that says that the direct methanol fuel cell has a system efficiency of about 20%. (other fuel cells are in 60% range)
Still 20% of 90% is better than 8% by a long shot. I'm sure there are other places to lose energy, but the fuel cell/electric motor combination is really what makes the "hydrogen vehicle" plausible, even though it's energy intensive to liberate the hydrogen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Boy, I hadn't heard about the laptop thing. That's quite a jump from the stuff I had read about.
Are those efficiency numbers based on the fuel spent in the car itself, or does it take production and transportation of the fuel itself into account?
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
AFAIK there are still issues with catalyst poisoning. So the laptop fuelcell will need ultrapure methanol, which isn't something that we're going to find at a gas station style pump.
Everything I've seem says this is a problem for most fuelcell, but its a problem that should be doable, it just might take some more time.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Are those efficiency numbers based on the fuel spent in the car itself, or does it take production and transportation of the fuel itself into account?
At the car itself. Production of hydrogen is very inefficient, but since the efficiency of the vehicle is expected to be so high, you can get away with a pretty inefficient process, and still improve on the overall emissions/efficency picture over gasoline.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I should clarify:
Production of hydrogen by electrolysis is very inefficient, and not really worth doing when you can just as easily use the elctrons to charge a battery and drive a car. That's the point of the article that started the thread.
But commercial hydrogen is usually produced on a large scale by reforming methane with steam, which is much more efficient than electrolysis. The combination of methane reformed to hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cell, and electric motor driven cars has a good chance of significantly improving on the emission/efficiency over gasoline.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ummm nuclear power can last us 100,000 years at our current rate of worldwide energy consumption.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I was going to give this bit about ethanol its own thread, but found much of it had already been discussed here.
Hatrackers are smart.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: But commercial hydrogen is usually produced on a large scale by reforming methane with steam, which is much more efficient than electrolysis. The combination of methane reformed to hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cell, and electric motor driven cars has a good chance of significantly improving on the emission/efficiency over gasoline.
True, but then again, water is far more plentiful. Through a combination of nuclear and renewable energy sources, I have no doubt that within the next couple decades we could have an abundance of clean and cheap energy. If this ever actually occurs, then the extra efficiency won't be as big of an issue.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Water isn't energy. And carbon is also plentiful. If only through decomposition of biomass, it's still more efficient to create hydrogen from methane, than to use electrolysis.
I strongly doubt that we will ever again have energy as cheap and abundant as we have for the last half century. Even if other energy sources become viable, it will not have the density of petroleum, and it will be spread across an increasing population that will become increasingly covetous of the energy others use.
The only way to have resources in relative abundance is to conserve them, and reduce the population.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
edited for a few minor spelling and grammar changes.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Water isn't energy. And carbon is also plentiful. If only through decomposition of biomass, it's still more efficient to create hydrogen from methane, than to use electrolysis.
I never meant to imply that water was an energy source, nor that electrolysis was a more efficient than using methane. What I meant was that as far as I know, methane was not plentiful enough to act as a replacement for gasoline. Methane is already being heavily utilized, and to the best of my knowledge we are not producing enough to fulfill demand once we run out of naturally occuring sources.
If I am wrong in these beliefs, please feel free correct me. If my understanding of things is correct, then at best methane is a temporary solution until something better comes along. I suggested using water as a source of hydrogen due to its abundance. While it may not be as efficiant, it is simply a matter of providing enough energy. So long as that is taken care of, we have no real fear of running out of this resource.
quote: I strongly doubt that we will ever again have energy as cheap and abundant as we have for the last half century. Even if other energy sources become viable, it will not have the density of petroleum, and it will be spread across an increasing population that will become increasingly covetous of the energy others use.
The only way to have resources in relative abundance is to conserve them, and reduce the population.
I'm not convinced that is a given. For one thing, fission power could certainly go a long way towards meeting our energy needs. Currently the greatest oposition to their use is political, but as other energy sources get more expensive this will likely begin to change.
Renewable energy could do much to help our energy problems. Solar and wind are becoming increasingly prevelant, and as time goes on they are getting cheaper and more powerful. Even today, solar power could be capable of meeting a decent sized portion of our needs were it not for prohibitive economic factors. As conventional energy costs go up and renewable costs go down, I think that renewable energy will be able to play a significant part in power generation.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Solar and Wind will never be more than small scale. They are far to inefficient for the land and material costs. Additionally, year round large scale solar energy is even only an option in some places.
What we may see is more building/homes cuting down their use with some solar panels in the places where this makes good sense.
When the methane runs out or becomes cost prohibitive the lack of methane as a hydrogen source will be the least of our problems. Since almost anything that has a nitrogen in, fertalizers being the big one, comes from methane.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Forunately, there are other sources of methane besides natural deposits. Still, it seems unwise to throw an even greater burden on this resource.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I never meant to imply that water was an energy source, nor that electrolysis was a more efficient than using methane. What I meant was that as far as I know, methane was not plentiful enough to act as a replacement for gasoline. Methane is already being heavily utilized, and to the best of my knowledge we are not producing enough to fulfill demand once we run out of naturally occuring sources.
We've got to keep track of which topic we're on. I'm just talking about providing fuel for vehicles. I've said above that electricity is better put to use charging batteries than liberating hydrogen from water. If batteries can compete with a chemical fuel supply, then great. If not, then we need to come up with a fuel that can be produced "naturally." That is from plants of some sort. This is just another kind of solar power.
It really doesn't matter where the molecules come from to start with, but they must be part of an renewable cycle. Methane is CH4. That's 4 hydrogen atoms. It can be created by decomposing biomass, which is naturally available, and contains its own energy, which can be used to liberate the hydrogen. The standard process includes steam, so yes, some hydrogen is liberated from water, but not through electrolysis.
As far as having abundant energy, consider: Fossil fuels are derived from solar energy as well, but it's solar energy that was stored up over hundreds of millions of years. We've used up the largest available fraction of that energy (at least as far as oil and gas are concerned) in just over a hundred years. There's no way we can take more energy from the sun than what it delivers on a daily basis. Once we're used up hundreds of millions of years worth of energy, there won't be a way to produce power at the same rate. So forget about "an abundance of clean and cheap energy." We can only use it as fast as it arrives.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Wow, that is a sexy car. They don't have the price up yet, but I suspect it's going to be much more than I will want to spend on a car. (I.E. I bet it's going to be well over $30K). I wonder if they have any plans to introduce a model that your average family could afford. If not, then this is really no more exciting to me than seeing the newest models from Bently or Lamborghini.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Still, Tesla Motors...That's a smart name in more ways than one. If I had the money and didn't mind being 1st-Gen guinea pig, I'd spring for this.
Still, isn't this just going to put a strain on the electric producing facilities? Maybe they could combine those nanocapacitorwhatsits so they'd work well with solar power. From little I've heard the panels that are used currently waste over 3/4's of the energy hitting them.
<---Has vague box labeled "solar power" in brain.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Still, isn't this just going to put a strain on the electric producing facilities?
Only if people choose to charge their car at peak usage times, which isn't likely.
Actually, the daily usage cycle is a huge problem for electric companies, because they have to be able to bring power generation capability on line fast during peak times (most notably about 2-3 in the afternoon on hot days). I've heard of power companies burning hydrogen to produce high quality steam for their generators, simply because bringing a boiler up to speed takes too long. Talk about a waste.
At night time, power companies either shut down capacity, or they try to sell it at a discount so they can keep production relatively even with daytime loads. Some even use nighttime capacity to pump water uphill so that they can allow the water to run down through generators during peak time.
If EV's owners charge their cars when demand is lowest (night time) it could actually balance the grid and make the whole system much more efficient.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I must say, I'm shocked at the timeline. 14 to 18 months to have fuel derived from plankton?
At least we won't have to wait long to see if they know what they're doing.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I wouldn't mind driving a car that runs on plankton, though I am curious as to how that works, chemically.
--j_k
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Same as running a car on vegetable oil. What they're claiming is that their system to derive oil from plankton is 400 times more "productive" than other plant based oils. I wonder what their measure of productivity is.
I'm also curious what they are doing with the electromagnetic field.
14 to 18 months doesn't sound unreasonable for a project like this, although I've been through enough to know that time estimates are rarely accurate. (The Money Pit: "Two Weeks!")
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I just came back from Who Killed The Electric Car? -- and while I didn't expect to be impressed (and wasn't, overly), the movie does chronicle the California zero-emissions law in exceptional detail. It's... unbelievable, how jealously car companies kept secret and destroyed their electric products. I live in California, and I never knew how aggressive they were, both in Sacramento and through their dealerships.
The film's most interesting posit was that car companies discouraged electric vehicles because they have so few moving parts -- there's very little maintenance to perform, and that's where the bulk of dealerships' revenue comes from. It sounded valid, but I'm going to want to research this a bit before adopting the opinion.
But, ugh. I really hope Tesla Motors succeeds -- I'd love to abandon the old car companies for a cleaner, superior tech.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)