Now this is what I would get before an ethanol car

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by seeker311, Jun 18, 2008.

  1. seeker311

    seeker311 The Collector

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Posts:
    9,188
    News Credits:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Likes:
    +28
  2. BigPrime3000

    BigPrime3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    3,407
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    Not really, from a user-end it seems great, but what they don't tell you about is the amount of energy needed to actually produce the hydrogen. As long as the majority of electricity is produced by the burning of fossil fuels hydrogen fuel cells are no more green than anything else, it's just that all of the pollution has already happened before you get your hands on it.


    As far as I'm concerned Hybrids are the only option for the next vehicle I get.
     
  3. Nutcrusher

    Nutcrusher Decepticon

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    1,228
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +4
    Actually, the cost is around $22,000 for a three year lease. So if you are slightly better than well off, then you could. Not that you ever would. Like BigPrime3000 said, it's technically not clean, nor is it practical, unless you have a hydrogen station in your neighborhood.

    At least normal cars can be converted to Ethanol. And Ethanol tends to give certain cars more power. Although limited technology means that Ethanol's not a "green" fuel either.
     
  4. nkelsch

    nkelsch Do you know this Icon? TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Posts:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    216
    Likes:
    +0
    Hydrogen is not cheap or efficient to refine. So unless you are using a clean and unlimited energy source like Solar or Nuclear, you are not saving energy, saving money or saving emissions.

    Cart before the horse. We saw the failure in mandating ethanol before having a cheap, reliable bio-mass source, the same thing applies for this. If we are all refining Hydrogen using our current power-grid with its current power plants, it is simply a shell game and does little to take us to energy independence.

    Twice as energy efficient does no good if it takes 3-4 times more energy to refile the fuel cell.

    Show me the solar house where I can refine hydrogen in my Garage over a period of time using solar panels and I will buy one tomorrow. Until the Solar House takes off, I'll stick with my gas/electric options and look for more efficient gas engines and better sources of biomass.
     
  5. bugmenot

    bugmenot Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2006
    Posts:
    2,252
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    By itself it doesn't. It's the same as putting race fuel in a street car. It doesn't magicaly make more power. What it does do is allow you to run more aggressive ignition and cam timing which will make more power and still be within the detonation threshold due to ethanol's higher octane rating.
     
  6. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    Oil shock, meet OBE.
     
  7. Nutcrusher

    Nutcrusher Decepticon

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Posts:
    1,228
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +4
    Ohhh. I see where I misworded things. Blah. Ethanol doesn't give more power just by itself. Of course not. Yes. You are quite right. :) 
     
  8. Superion33

    Superion33 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Posts:
    1,241
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    Like people have said earlier, hydrogen is a ruse. Its a shell game. Hydrogen isn't just found in the ground. You have to use energy to create it, store it, transport it, etc. The only difference between hydrogen and gas is that you MAKE hydrogen rather than FIND fossil fuels.

    And the process of making it is obviously one in which you expend more energy to create the hydrogent than the amount of energy that you can get form hydrogen as a fuel. Thats just simple thermodynamics - you can't create energy.

    So really, you are putting 2 degrees of separation between the fuel source and the vehicle: Fossil fuel - electricity - hydrogen. Electric cars are better since they only have one degree of separation and don't have added costs of transport/storage/etc. If you can also get electricity from solar and wind, then you truly do have zero emissions. Just another technology to add to the loser pile.

    Ethanol
    Biomass
    Hydrogen

    Honestly, one of the reasons why car dealers aren't switching to electric cars is that they will lose so much money per vehicle. I read somewhere that in reality, you aren't paying $15,000 - $25,000 for a car. If you add in maintenance, fuel, insurance, inspections, repairs, etc, the cost is closer to $100,0000!!!!! THATS where the dealerships/auto companies/oil companies/insurance companies/maintenance repair shops make their money. If you make an electric engine, a lot of those businesses will disappear. Not very many people understand the Internal Combustion Engine (as we are all not well versed like bugmenot) but most of us can understand a simple battery and simple motor. That will lead to much lower maintenance repair costs. And lower weights etc. It seems the American public has finally wised up.
     
  9. Chaos Muffin

    Chaos Muffin Misadventure Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Posts:
    28,751
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +4
    I just want a turbo spree
     
  10. nkelsch

    nkelsch Do you know this Icon? TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Posts:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    216
    Likes:
    +0
    I wasn't aware I didn't need car insurance for Electric cars.

    I also wasn't aware that electric cars ran off free electricity and I won't be charged by my local utility for charging up my car.

    And it is pretty amazing that electric cars never break down or break down significantly less than internal combustion engines.

    And It is great they are so safe and never become run-down that no one ever has to have them inspected.

    And I guess the electricity prevents the break pads, windshieldwashers, power windows, engine lights, speakers, tires, all of that from wearing out so I never have to replace anything.

    It sounds like all these industries are right to continue their grand conspiracy to destroy the electric car because they will all be out of jobs. Sign me up for the electric car.
     
  11. Jeremy.B

    Jeremy.B Formerly Leader Blackout TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Posts:
    7,340
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +5
    I lol'd. I lol'd hard. That was a great rebuttal!
     
  12. Superion33

    Superion33 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Posts:
    1,241
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    Interesting, I never said that electric cars didn't need those things...

    Mayhaps you were putting words in my mouth? I didn't say anything along those lines at all. I was simply commenting on how there is a well established set of industries that feed off one another and that it would be hard to institute any kind of change as so many people want to maintain the status quo.

    But go ahead, and make assumptions on what other people say instead of just reading what they write...
     
  13. nkelsch

    nkelsch Do you know this Icon? TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Posts:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    216
    Likes:
    +0
    I know people want to defend the electric car, but there is a reason for the 3 degrees of separation because ELECTRICITY even with todays battery technology is hard to 'store' and slow to charge. Even the most modern electric car on the market only has a range of 220 miles. WHICH CLEARLY CANNOT FILL 100% of an owners needs. Which is why Cars like the Chevy Volt that will run on electricity around town but cut over to internal combustion engine is more practical because people still have the need to actually go farther than 220 miles in one go.

    And it is not like swapping out batteries in an electric car is even remotely possible or economical. That is a serious problem with the electric car which is why the minor loss of energy efficiency is widely accepted with the gas/electric hybrid because people no longer severely limited in the distance they are driving.

    That is why they are RESEARCHING hydrogen. It basically allows you to have an electric motor vehicle that runs off a fuel opposed to stored electricity in a battery. generating its electricity on the go which means UNLIMITED RANGE opposed to a limited range with a long recharge time. (especially since the single largest flaw of the Lithium Ion battery is increased recharge time with age)

    Hydrogen fuelcell is not the problem, the generating technology is. Which is why the solar house model works great for Hydrogen because instead of charging up an electric car with limited range, I can refine hydrogen fuel and drive my electric motor unlimited distance with only the need to swap a fuelcell when out of fuel opposed to having to stop for hours to recharge.

    Of course there is room for faster and more efficient batteries, but batteries have always shown much less potential than basically every other technology out there.

    No one has the answer, there is no correct next technology at this time. Anyone who has thier mind set on a single technology is going to be in for dissapointment as it will take a combination of all of them to get us to where we need to be.
     
  14. Superion33

    Superion33 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Posts:
    1,241
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    You just come off as rude and a blowhard.

    If you honestly think I was stating that electricity was free...

    Only trying to have a discussion and you belittle someone like that. You truly are a blowhard from all that I know of you...

    The MAJORITY of people will do fine with driving less than 100 miles in one day. The average amount of miles driven by the AVERAGE person is 40 miles. Sure there are exceptions, and for those people they will have to find something else. But to condemn a technology because it does not satisfy all the needs of EVERYONE out there is ludicrous. The electric car will be able to fulfill what it needs to do for the MAJORITY of drivers.

    Hydrogen is pure bunk. In the long run, better batteries will be made that will increase the range of electric cars - thereby making having to carry a tank of hydrogen around pointless. People thought the same thing about electric cars a few years ago - how they'd never be able to get 100 miles on a charge. How it would take all day to recharge. With ultra capacitors and titanate lithium ion all these those worries are being dealt with. And batteries WILL prove to be the long term winner. Not hydrogen.
     
  15. nkelsch

    nkelsch Do you know this Icon? TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Posts:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    216
    Likes:
    +0
    Yes, you actually did.
    Dealers won't lose a DIME. They won;'t lose a dime on sales price, financing, warranties, maintenance or repair or body repair from accidents.

    And car dealerships make their money of of car financing anyways. They couldn't care what you buy as long as you finance through them.

    Dealerships won't lose a dime on alternative technology vehicles, Toyota is proving this fact right now with the Prius by owning the 50mpg market in the US.

    Auto Companies won't lose a dime if their car is energy efficient and competitive.

    Insurance companies won't lose a dime because electric cars still need insurance and won't 'cheaper' risk in any capacity.

    Maintenance Repair shops wont' lose a dime because breaks, tires, windshield wipers, electrical systems, air conditioners, speakers, paint, side mirriors, all of those still will break with wear and tear.

    Only debatably oil companies would lose money and that is only if they do not choose to invest in and follow other energy technologies like hydrogen, solar, biofuel, wind and so on. Since electric batteries is not a FUEL, you will still need them to charge your precious and flawed battery car.

    So what didn't you say? I assume when you put sentences next to each other like that you meant that somehow the electric car was being prevented because it would somehow damage all those industries... Did you not say that?
     
  16. Superion33

    Superion33 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Posts:
    1,241
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    The ICE has many moving parts. Cylinders, cams, drive trains, transmissions, etc. Basically you are combusting fuel to move mechanical parts and then transferring that energy somehow from the engine to turn the wheels. Thats the basic premise. Electric cars simplify that considerably. There is one battery and 4 motors, 1 for each wheel. The battery and motors are connected by wires to transfer the energy. This therefore will eliminate a LOT of the complexity to electric cars. Not everyone understands drivetrains and transmissions, but most can understand batteries and motors. So therefore, the maintenance costs WILL come down as basically any electrician would be able to tell you whats wrong with your car instead of relying on a car mechanic.

    Sure you will still have accidents and malfunctions. But less parts and less complexity means less things going wrong.

    I only brought up insurance and inspections because everyone will suffer if the status quo changes. There is almost 100 years of status quo and no one wants to change the way they do business. It will take too much money and energy to change. It was the inertia I was referring to...
     
  17. Superion33

    Superion33 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Posts:
    1,241
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    You are basing your ideas on assumptions such as battery research not improving range or reducing recharge time. As technology always continues to improve, you basic paradigm is flawed. Even the ICE has become more efficient since its advent - getting more power for less fuel as compared to earlier models.

    Your paradigm is basically flawed. The advantage of hydrogen cars over battery powered cars is range. However, seeing as batteries can get twice the range of an average person's driving distance, the advantage to hydrogen is no more. Battery powered cars are much more attractive then as, like I said earlier, they are only one degree of separation away from the fuel source (be it solar wind or coal). Thus more energy will be used for hydrogen as compared to charging a battery. Not only that, electric cars can be charged at your home. The infrastructure is much more closer to being developed for battery charging than a hydrogen infrastructure. As you probably know, hydrogen is one of the hardest elements to store and transport. Again, high costs as compared to batteries. So, already, the one advantage to hydrogen, range, is already moot as batteries can already get double a driver's distance.
     

Share This Page