31 replies to this topic

[Monsta®]

mercuryg, on 09 December 2009 - 03:31 PM, said:

what's th point in spending all that extra when we can simply switch fossil fuel for a synthesised variety? It makes no sense.

tell that to him! they chopped down his habitat to grow palm oil thats the synthesised variety used to make bio fuels!

[mercuryg]

Monsta®, on 09 December 2009 - 05:45 PM, said:

tell that to him! they chopped down his habitat to grow palm oil thats the synthesised variety used to make bio fuels!

Those bio fuels are not what i'm talking about, and are another red herring. I'm talking about synthesised petrol, which can be made in different ways. One is by a form of effectively concentrating the amount of oil needed to make the fuel, thus reducing vastly the amount of oil needed to create petrol and the rest are pure, synthetic, fuels using other basic ingredients.

Furthermore, your picture of the orang utan is great and has a point (albeit one that missed the target) but have you seen the damage to the environment the extraction of Lithium (which, incidentally, will also run out - like oil - what then?) causes? It creates deserts where there were non before, making the environment devoid of life, it's just as destructive. Why haven't you highlighted that? Why has that escaped your comments?

I'm not having a go at you - far from it, it's a viable and interesting discussion - but to throw up the plight of the orang utan and miss the fact that the mining of a substance essentual to th viable future of the electric car poses one of teh greates ecological rapes this planet has seen is somewhat curious.
e

[Mr Darn]

What is this synthesized veriety made of? and where do the materials come from?

Are they unlimited?

I ask because i dont know, not to make a point.

[mercuryg]

Mr Darn, on 10 December 2009 - 10:58 AM, said:

What is this synthesized veriety made of? and where do the materials come from?

Are they unlimited?

I ask because i dont know, not to make a point.

Some of the synthesized petrols are made from a concentrated method of distilling oil. Others are being developed that are chemically created in laboratories. No, they are not unlimited, and neither are the substances that we need to make batteries. Over half of the Lithium deposits known to exist are in a particular part of Bolivia. this area has now been ripped to shreds to the poin that no life can exist there, the local infrastructure is ireeversibly poisoned, and so on.

The concept of 'unlimited' electricity is a myth; renewable energy sources exist, but we are a long, long way from developing methods of creating enough via these sources to power our country (and others) let alone our cars.

[Monsta®]

mercuryg, on 10 December 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

Some of the synthesized petrols are made from a concentrated method of distilling oil. Others are being developed that are chemically created in laboratories. No, they are not unlimited, and neither are the substances that we need to make batteries. Over half of the Lithium deposits known to exist are in a particular part of Bolivia. this area has now been ripped to shreds to the poin that no life can exist there, the local infrastructure is ireeversibly poisoned, and so on.

The concept of 'unlimited' electricity is a myth; renewable energy sources exist, but we are a long, long way from developing methods of creating enough via these sources to power our country (and others) let alone our cars.

You obviously don’t know much about battery technology! Never heard of EEstors? read this! Your lithium argument just fell on its face as did your myth theory!

[mercuryg]

Monsta®, on 10 December 2009 - 02:06 PM, said:

You obviously don’t know much about battery technology! Never heard of EEstors? read this! Your lithium argument just fell on its face as did your myth theory!

I don't claim to be an expert, but a coupel of years bacck I had the great privelege of researching and writing a piece on the future of electric vehicles for inclusion in the publicity material for the Spyker car company and F1 team ( I was, for a short period, their UK press officer.) It involved talking to the CEO - Muller - and a number of his engineers about future engine technology, and about the pros and cons of battery technology over the IC engine. To a man, while each engineer harboured a desire to seek the future of efficient battery technology, they all agreed that the immediate - foreseeable - future for everyday, mass produced cars (and supercars) lay in the super efficient internal combustion engine that is to be seen on teh market within the next few years. This wasn;t because of the pressure of teh oil companies, or because of a fear of change (indeed, Spyker had a hydrogen fuel cell prototype running at teh time - not sure if they still do) but because all research shows that it is the way forward.

The technology you mention above is, quite clearly from that article, very much in its infancy; as a writer and journalist i can see the trepidation and concern between each line. What's more, the technology relies on something even more worrying than Lithium - Barium! Bloody hell that's dangerous stuff! This is the problem - each and every way of harnessing electric power for vehicles that are not connected to a direct supply is faced with one problem: storage. This isn't a myth, and it isn't something that can be overcome in a short time - it's a fact. It always has been, ever since that record breaking run a century ago. We are still, one hundred and more years later, facing immeasurable problems with storing electricity efficiently in a manner that is necessary to adequately power personal motor vehicles.

Furthermore, super efficient barium batteries or not, we are faced with another problem: generating enough to charge them all, all the time, every night. It is simply not possible - not now, and not within the next twenty, thirty years.

I'm not saying the electric car is not a viable proposition for future generations of drivers - it is; but that's in the future - a long way in the future, well beyond our lifetime. Should we cease development? no, of course not, we should keep at it, and hard. But we have to accept that, if we want to own cars and drive them at will, we need to focus on making the current method more efficient, more viable. We need to take what we have and make it better, and that is what is happening.

It's no myth, Monsta - 'unlimited' electricity is a thing of pure science fiction. Why aren't we all utilising the sun, the wind, the waves? It's simple - because we can't, because we cannot get enough that way.Perhaps the answer lies in us revising how we live (I don't drive a car - i'd love to, but I don;t need one at the moment; how many others could live like me but choose not to?) but at the moment it doesn't lie in electric cars.

[Mr Darn]

But Why?

What is the reasoning behind this not being made a reality now?

Its simply money.

we are wrecking this planet, and its all because the research into other means is too expensive, and will remain so until oil runs out.

Its not that we dont have the technology to do it, we do. Its just not financially practical to put the means into place.

Quote

they all agreed that the immediate - foreseeable - future for everyday, mass produced cars (and supercars) lay in the super efficient internal combustion engine that is to be seen on teh market within the next few years.

And this is another reason, Mass Production.

The combustion engined cars are cheaper to produce, therefore a bigger profit margin is made, and people can afford to buy them. Electric cars with this new technology would be too expensive to buy at the moment, and its too big a financial risk to say "right, we're going to make thousands of these and MAKE it cheap to produce". No mass production company are willing to experement with it, just specialist companies that can only produce them in small numbers.

These small numbers mean they are expensive, and immediatly price themselves out of the market.

Money Money Money.

Give out an unlimited supply for research and production, and i bet a prototype could be knocked together in 6 months. Perhaps not electric, but something renewable.

[Monsta®]

Quote

I don't claim to be an expert, but a coupel of years bacck I had the great privelege of researching and writing a piece on the future of electric vehicles for inclusion in the publicity material for the Spyker car company and F1 team ( I was, for a short period, their UK press officer.) It involved talking to the CEO - Muller - and a number of his engineers about future engine technology, and about the pros and cons of battery technology over the IC engine. To a man, while each engineer harboured a desire to seek the future of efficient battery technology, they all agreed that the immediate - foreseeable - future for everyday, mass produced cars (and supercars) lay in the super efficient internal combustion engine that is to be seen on teh market within the next few years. This wasn;t because of the pressure of teh oil companies, or because of a fear of change (indeed, Spyker had a hydrogen fuel cell prototype running at teh time - not sure if they still do) but because all research shows that it is the way forward.

since when has spyker been involved with hydrogen fuel cells? Ford own that patent!

Quote

The technology you mention above is, quite clearly from that article, very much in its infancy; as a writer and journalist i can see the trepidation and concern between each line. What's more, the technology relies on something even more worrying than Lithium - Barium! Bloody hell that's dangerous stuff! This is the problem - each and every way of harnessing electric power for vehicles that are not connected to a direct supply is faced with one problem: storage. This isn't a myth, and it isn't something that can be overcome in a short time - it's a fact. It always has been, ever since that record breaking run a century ago. We are still, one hundred and more years later, facing immeasurable problems with storing electricity efficiently in a manner that is necessary to adequately power personal motor vehicles.

So all spark plugs must be dangerous? As the centre wire is made or barium!

Quote

Furthermore, super efficient barium batteries or not, we are faced with another problem: generating enough to charge them all, all the time, every night. It is simply not possible - not now, and not within the next twenty, thirty years.

Really thats very defeatist!

Quote

I'm not saying the electric car is not a viable proposition for future generations of drivers - it is; but that's in the future - a long way in the future, well beyond our lifetime. Should we cease development? no, of course not, we should keep at it, and hard. But we have to accept that, if we want to own cars and drive them at will, we need to focus on making the current method more efficient, more viable. We need to take what we have and make it better, and that is what is happening.

No there already making them and their very viable and like all other things they can only get better

Quote

It's no myth, Monsta - 'unlimited' electricity is a thing of pure science fiction. Why aren't we all utilising the sun, the wind, the waves? It's simple - because we can't, because we cannot get enough that way.Perhaps the answer lies in us revising how we live (I don't drive a car - i'd love to, but I don;t need one at the moment; how many others could live like me but choose not to?) but at the moment it doesn't lie in electric cars.

Of course not there coming up with loads of different ways to harness the powers of mother nature, Narec is a good example.

[mercuryg]

Monsta®, on 10 December 2009 - 08:17 PM, said:

since when has spyker been involved with hydrogen fuel cells? Ford own that patent!

No they don't, and neither do they have a hydrogen programme at the moment. Honda has a Hydrogen fuel cell car on the market right now as a trial. Spyker is a surprisingly forward thinking company that has a very high tech research unit.

Quote

So all spark plugs must be dangerous? As the centre wire is made or barium!

Barium is not a safe material. It's recovery is just as damaging to the environment as that of Lithium.

Quote

Really thats very defeatist!

It's not defeatist at all Monsta, no more so than declaring we'll run out of oil in XYZ years. It's fact.

Quote

No there already making them and their very viable and like all other things they can only get better

They're in development, not in general use.

Quote

Of course not there coming up with loads of different ways to harness the powers of mother nature, Narec is a good example.

Narec is a stunning example, an excellent research centre that is at the forefront of research and one that we should be proud of. It's a research cedntre, however, and one that is bringing new ideas to the market. Ideas are all very well, but the simple fact remains that in over a hundred years of tryin we have still to come up with a method of storing electricity in a manner that will enable us to run cars efficiently.

Darn's constant assertion that its all about money has some bearing - everything needs money - but there is more to it than that. We need to face facts - batteries are not efficient at the moment; they may become so in the future, but when? Not in ten years, not in twenty, not unless something absolutely radical comes to fore, and that hasn't happened in a hundred years - why now?

This 'radical change is needed' is th problem: we see it, also, with the current hot air meeting in Copenhagen that is discussing a premise known to be scientifically flawed, we see it with many areas of industry that are politically charged. We're destroying this planet: yes, we are, we live on it, that's why. We reap its minerals (like lithium and barium and oil and coal) to a degree that leaves it damaged beyond repair - and for what? for our convenience.

The answer lies, if there is one, in changing the way we view transport; we don't all need a car, but we do need to get from A to B. For now, the car remains, and it will do so - for our lifetime - as primarily a combustion engined device that is much, much more efficient than any electric version can be.

[Monsta®]

Quote

No they don't, and neither do they have a hydrogen programme at the moment. Honda has a Hydrogen fuel cell car on the market right now as a trial. Spyker is a surprisingly forward thinking company that has a very high tech research unit.

Hydrogen Power



Ford is moving ahead with a range of technology solutions simultaneously, including hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines. Ford began working on hydrogen technology in the early 1990s. Ford's first hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, released in 2001, was used to develop its first hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine.



* We currently have a fleet of 30 hydrogen-powered Focus fuel cell vehicles on the road as part of a worldwide, seven-city program to conduct real-world testing of fuel cell technology. The fleet has accumulated more than 965,000 kilometres (600,000 miles) since its inception. With this fleet on the road, significant information that will be integrated into future fuel cell vehicle propulsion systems is being generated in different local environmental conditions. Ford is testing Focus FCV in Vancouver and is the first company to test fuel cell vehicles in Canada

* In addition, we have 24 hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine shuttle buses in cities across the United States and Canada. This fleet of hydrogen internal combustion engine shuttle buses is providing valuable real-world experience to assist in the research and production of next-generation hydrogen internal combustion engines

* The hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engine (H2ICE) demonstration fleet has three shuttles in Ottawa. In addition, Ford of Canada is preparing seven more hydrogen shuttle buses for use in other regions of Canada

* A joint effort between Ford of Canada, BP, and the Government of Canada called The Hydrogen Highway hopes to build the world's first highway equipped with hydrogen fueling stations.

Funny thats from fords web site? And they don’t have a fuel cell program!

Quote

Barium is not a safe material. It's recovery is just as damaging to the environment as that of Lithium.

In that case so is oil coal trees clay stone gold iron etc etc but at least barium doesn’t create green house gases!

Quote

It's not defeatist at all Monsta, no more so than declaring we'll run out of oil in XYZ years. It's fact.

How is stating the oil will eventually run out defeatist? Its a fact where as when the oil is gone we will still be able to produce electric!

Quote

They're in development, not in general use.

So tesla make phantom cars? Plus there’s a whole raft of others being released in the next few years.

[mercuryg]

Monsta®, on 11 December 2009 - 12:33 PM, said:

Funny thats from fords web site? And they don’t have a fuel cell program!

I stand corrected; I had read recently that Ford was to abandon the hydrogen cell programme in favour of more viable alternative methods - I must have been dreaming.

Quote

In that case so is oil coal trees clay stone gold iron etc etc but at least barium doesn’t create green house gases!

The greenhouse gases point is an entirely different one. If we want to go down that route we can turn back the clock and start again, but this discussion is about electric cars and their viability.

Quote

How is stating the oil will eventually run out defeatist? Its a fact where as when the oil is gone we will still be able to produce electric!

I didn;t say it was defeatist; I said stating that there is no viable storage facility for electricity - and none on the horizon - was no more defeatist than stating that oil will one day run out. Both are facts.

Quote

So tesla make phantom cars? Plus there’s a whole raft of others being released in the next few years.

Tesla make very few, very expensive electric cars that are no more efficient and no more advanced than the mst advanced internal combustion engined car, which brings us full circle to where we began.

Your method of discussion seems to be to attempt to 'score points'; I'm not interested in that, but in putting forward what I hav learned from my work in the field. You have chosen to ignore the clear and basic facts that mining for lithium and barium is just as destructive to the environment as non-efficient internal combustion engines are, yet these are basic facts that are part and parcel of teh problem for such materials are necessary parts of the battery construction and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

You choose to ignore the fact that we cannot, at present, possibly create enough electricity to charge a nation full of electric cars - neither can many other countries - by renenewable sources, and will not be able to do so for a very long time as putting the infrastructure in place - shoudl it be made to work - will take a long, long time.

You choose to ignore that in 100 years of research and development on electric motor cars we are little further forward than we were before, and you choose to ignore that very soon the internal combustion engine, running on synthesized petrol, will be a highly efficient low pollution device that is the acknowledged immediate future of the vehicle (immediate being several decades, not several years.)

Why? had you come forward with a case that said 'these guys have developed a super efficient, cheap, battery that is safe and lasts ages, doesn't need recharging, is lightweight and ccreates no pollution without destroying the habitat surrounding the mining of the materials that it requires; I would hold my hand up and say 'hey, that's the future'. You haben't, you've simply reiterated time and time again that the electric car is great and so on.

It's not, not yet, and not in teh near future, and this is something - i repeat - that we need to come to terms with.

Back in the 1950's Rover experimented with alternative methods of powering cars; they produced a gas turbine car that was revolutionary and very impressive for the time. problem was the immense heat created by it would melt the garage before it emerged. Similar problems, although not as dramatic, attend every single revolutionary new method of powering cars, except the internal combustion engine. This is why the motor industry is spending hundreds of billions developing the next generation, and why electric cars will remain a sideline. It's a fact, and it's not going to change.

back to an earlier point you made, perhaps we should all revert to the horse and cart.

[Merlin]

This is great! I've learnt so much by reading your posts, I knew very little about this subject except that to make batteries and dispose of them is more harmful than the ICE. Keep it up I want to learn more and eventually make my own mind up.Cheers