View Full Version : Electrics? not sofast
01-15-2009, 02:21 PM
It seems a lot of the buzz at the auto show is about direct injection. How about a gasoline engine with a 30% increase in mileage. More expensive? Yes but not any where near the hybrid level. Better emissions too.
By directly injecting the gas into the combustion chamber the cooling effect of its vaporizing enables much higher compression and consequent efficiency.
01-15-2009, 02:36 PM
I think Honda was working on that last idea year.
As far as a renewable liquid fuel that matches gasoline. There's this new development of long chain alcohols (8 carbon attoms) It's not the same as ethanol and it makes a seamless substitute for gasoline. It is synthesized from cellulosic biomass by genetically engineered e.coli. Let's hope it's cheaper than importing oil from the hostiles.
"e. coli, it's not just for diarrhea anymore."
Popular Mechanics article on long chain alcohols (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4298594.html)
01-17-2009, 06:08 AM
I really wonder how all this will play out. If this recession continues for a while and we do come up with much better vehicle mileage many of the oil exporters will be in deep trouble. Venezuela already is and Iran is close behind. They need to sell whatever they can to whomever will buy it. This is not a bullish forecast for oil or gasoline. The question is how much incentive will there be to develop more efficient engines if gas is a buck?
The most intriguing idea to me is still the MIT engine. By directly injecting a small turbocharged engine with various combinations of ethanol and gasoline they claim a 55% mileage increase. How about a 4200# SUV that gets 30 mpg or God knows what you could get with a Civic.
Ken I'd like to see that become reality, but your right I don't think there is enough incentive for big autos to build highly efficient vehicles. I'd like a pickup that gets 30 MPG towing my popup or kayak trailer loaded with all six kayaks. Now that I would love to have. I only get 15 towing now, but 21 without towing. Mother nature has the answer, we just have to find it.
01-17-2009, 12:30 PM
What I think we need is a tax. It's not a very good idea in the middle of a recession but it won't last forever. When it's over gas prices will rise again. I'm thinking that the tax should kick in at some price higher than here. Say $2.00. If it goes to @2.01 there's and additional penny added on. At $2.02 an additional $.02 gets added etc. This would only start in all probability when the economy could handle it and keep the money here instead of in the pocket of some 300# Saudi Prince.
In the meantime there's so much excess oil around there's no place left to put it. We have tankers anchored in our harbors full to the top with no place to go. There are others slowing cruising around in the ocean with the same problem. I don't know how that's going to translate into gas prices but it's not bullish.
01-17-2009, 03:12 PM
"Feebates" (which is admittedly social engineering, i.e. government influencing personal choices and market behavior) is maybe what we need now. The thing about feebates is tht they would be revenue neutral, not a new tax, but a fee levied against purchasing inefficient vehicles with those same funds recycled back to subsidize the purchase of efficient vehicles. That way you get efficiency without taxing gasoline. It's a monetary incentive to "do the right thing" for our overall economy and our national security.
Gas Guzzlers then subsidize the purchase of efficient cars. A new Hummer or whatever vehicle, assuming it's used for family commuting say it gets 12 mpg might carry a fee/surcharge of say $4000. To purchase a new more efficient vehicle that carries 5 passengers and gets 52 mpg you might be given a rebate of $4000 to help you pay the difference for the more expensive efficient technology. It does not specify which technology to subsiize. It's based on mpg results (reduction of imported oil) and it can make these technologies affordable and if you still really want a huge wasteful vehicle you are still free to buy them....just that it will cost you more.(I can see that maybe you'd exclude penalizing large working trucks for farms, etc.)
01-17-2009, 03:40 PM
Ok so the couple that decides not to have children buys a freebated Civic while the couple that has 3 kids is penalized for buying an SUV. Oh well, we can't have zero population growth if couples have more than two kids can we?
The problem as always is who gets to decide these things and what do they get to decide next? A tax with a minimum of social engineering allows for many more options and allows people to tailor their choices to their own situation and taste. It's not what Orwell had in mind but it's worked pretty well so far.
Wether we're talking about this or countless numbers of other things in the operation of a society the fewer the choices the less likely the optimum solution. By letting people free to try many many things we discover what we otherwise would not. All the failed dot coms taught us lessons we could only have learned over many, many years if ever in any other system with any other culture.
01-19-2009, 05:30 AM
The gas tax idea may be simpler, for sure.
and I acknowledge your points which are good, especially people being free to try things.
But the middle of the road, average mileage cars would remain priced as is. No subsidy, no fee. Perhaps more efficient crossovers could occupy that unsubsidized and un-penalized territory. Chevy has the new Traverse which seats 8 and gets 24 MPG HWY. Maybe the feebate formula would involve MPG per seat.
I think if enough people chose the super efficient cars that cost more now, then the car makers would have a lot of incentive to find ways to upgrade the efficiency on all their fleet. Also, too, (Palin-esque) with the feebate idea, also, poor people who are stuck drivin' old inefficient dinosaurs might have some help gettin' somethin' new and efficient they can afford to get to work in, too. and the environment and national security would be helped at the same time, also.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that more people SHOULD cost more money. IMHO, The childless or people with 2 kids or less, shouldn't subsidize the megabreeders. BTW, My 4 door civic seats 5 pretty comfortably. I've had 4 guys in there simultaneously, ranging from 5"11 to 6'3", from 170 - 220 pounds on a drive that was about 1 hour each way....with no complaints about comfort. Three kids in the back seat- no problem. The 2010 Ford Fusion hybrid coming out this spring is family sized and has great mileage. IMHO, SUV's are overkill and a sign of how soft and spoiled we've become in that we feel that we have to haul tons of stuff with us wherever we go. BUT, The technology is there to have your cake and eat it too, in that, SUV's can be built with outstanding MPG. The 5,000 pound '59 Lincoln converted to the Linc Volt which has registered 65MPG equivalent running on DOMESTIC CNG. The concept is being proven but getting large but very efficient vehicles to be affordable is the next step, and it's probably doable. Heck, just retrofit that Jonathon Goodwin propulsion system into old V-8 1991 Suburbans, F-150s etc. and get 40 MPG.
01-19-2009, 07:32 AM
So instead of a child tax credit we should have a child tax penalty?
01-20-2009, 02:10 AM
IMO, maximum 2 child tax credits...replacement population...the third, fourth and fifth child, no tax credit. Yes...maybe start penalizing at some point at 5 or 6 + children which is unsustainable without rapidly degrading resources. One reason to think this way-Forget energy shortage problems, we are already overwhelming our aquifers. I personally wish peoeple would just be intelligent and not have be to induced to do the right thing with legislative incentives. In any tax credit policy, I would make exception for adopted children since they need care and are not the biological result of the adoptive parents running up the population.
01-20-2009, 01:20 PM
DD, if we limit reproduction to 2 children per family we will be nowhere near a replacement level. Some people will never marry. Some couples will not have children and the children that are produced will be subject to the same. As it is among highly developed countries only the US has a growing population and that because of immigration. The point again is that central planning is doomed to failure because it always assumes it can anticipate what it can't.
01-20-2009, 03:50 PM
Maybe we should have mandatory euthanasia for anyone over the age of 65.
Or , how about euthanizing all children born with birth defects or learning disabilities.
Maybe, instead of incarcerating criminals for lengthy prison terms, causing a burden on society, we just execute anyone guilty of a crime requiring more than 2 years in prison.
That move in itself would save us as a nation billions of dollars.
Doesn't it sound ridiculous? http://kfs.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
01-21-2009, 03:25 AM
Right now the guvmint subsidizes yer kids. That is social engineering / central planning if anything is. It says the more you breed the less taxes you pay, while at the same time your family is polluting and using more resources than mine and the more teachers, textbooks, school classrooms, sewage treatment, municipal water, etc. are needed to educate your brood and provide amenities that we all have to pay for.
I'm just saying don't subsidize excessive procreation. I'm not saying castrate or euthanize anyone. I'm saying pay to play.
You guys didn't jump on Luna for saying:
"Don't forget to spay and neuter your Republicans." http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif
But we were having a dialog about electric cars and whether they are the best thing to shift into....and it veered off into tax policy and philosophy.
01-21-2009, 03:28 AM
DD, obviously without children society eventually disappears. Most of us will reach a point where we can no longer work. If none of us had had kids what then?
01-21-2009, 03:33 AM
"Moderation in all things"- works for me.
01-21-2009, 03:58 AM
Dduffe hit the nail on the head...
I am subsidizing the children of others, because I have no children... That is Social Engineering... Plain and simple.
At two per family, you are right, we would have negative population growth... Which in the short term, might not be that bad of a thing, goven the population of the world, and the growing demand for the limited resources the planet provides...
So, instead of shooting dduffe's idea down, listen to the reasoning behind it, and then COMPROMISE (I know, a lost art in this country)... Make it for the first 3 children, then no tax incentive afterwards...
This all begs the question though... If you are having children just to get a tax break, not only are you moronic, as they will cost you far more than you save in taxes, but you are not having children for the right reasons in the first place.
01-21-2009, 01:13 PM
The reason for the tax break is because raising children is an extremely expensive proposition from which society at large greatly benefits. It isn't anything more than that and it couldn't be more sensible. What would you do if you reached retirement age and so did everyone else?
On the other hand who gets to decide that 3 is the number? In the meantime natural born US citizens don't reproduce themselves as it is. If you want to control population growth control the borders.
01-22-2009, 04:04 AM
Yeah, I do want our government to control the borders.
But also consider this:
Some guy bought a new fridge for his house. To get rid of his old fridge, he put it in his front yard and hung a sign on it saying: 'Free to good home. You want it, you take it.' For three days the fridge sat there without even one person looking twice at it. He eventually decided that people were too un-trusting of this deal.
It looked too good to be true, so he changed the sign to read: 'Fridge for sale $50.'
The next day someone stole it!
***They walk amongst us!***
*One day I was walking down the beach with some friends when someone shouted....'Look at that dead bird!' Someone looked up at the sky and said...'where?'
***They walk among us!!***
While looking at a house, my brother asked the estate agent which direction was north because, he explained, he didn't want the sun waking him up every morning. She asked, 'Does the sun rise in the north?' When my brother explained that the sun rises in the east, and has for sometime, she shook her head and said, 'Oh, I don't keep up with that stuff'
***They Walk Among Us!!***
My colleague and I were eating our lunch in our cafeteria, when we overheard one of the administrative assistants talking about the sunburn she got on her weekend drive to the beach. She drove down in a convertible, but 'didn't think she'd get sunburned because the car was moving'.
***They Walk Among Us!!!!***
My sister has a lifesaving tool in her car it's designed to cut through a seat belt if she gets trapped She keeps it in the trunk.
***They Walk Among Us!!!!!***
I was hanging out with a friend when we saw a woman with a nose ring attached to an earring by a chain. My friend said, 'Wouldn't the chain rip out every time she turned her head?' I had to explain that a person's nose and ear remain the same distance apart no matter which way the head is turned...
***They Walk Among Us!!!!!!! ***
I couldn't find my luggage at the airport baggage area. So I went to the lost luggage office and told the woman there that my bags never showed up. She smiled and told me not to worry because she was a trained professional and I was in good hands. 'Now,' she asked me, 'Has your plane arrived yet?'...
(I work with professionals like this.)
***They Walk Among Us!!!!!!!!***
While working at a pizza parlour I observed a man ordering a small pizza to go. He appeared to be alone and the cook asked him if he would like it cut into 4 pieces or 6. He thought about it for some time before responding. 'Just cut it into 4 pieces; I don't think I'm hungry enough to eat 6 pieces.
***Yep, They Walk Among Us, too.!!!!!!!!
Sadly, not only do they walk among us, they also reproduce !!!! http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/hammer.gif
http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif
Tax credits only encourage them.
01-22-2009, 06:59 AM
Back to the original topic.
"Electrics? Not so fast."
This argument is "Electrics ASAP."
Future American Auto Development (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Whats-Driving-Future-American-Auto-Development-65913.html)
01-24-2009, 01:07 AM
Electrics? Not So Fast???? Yes Electric VERY FAST. Shelby Supercars has made certain of that with the Ultimate Aero EV. The gasoline powered Ultimate Aero is already the world's fastest production supercar and here's the new electric version.
1200HP liquid cooled electric supercar that charges in 10 minutes off a 110V Outlet. Range 200 miles. Coming out in 6 months.
Ultimate Aero EV: SSC Plans To Build World's Fastest Electric Production Car (http://jalopnik.com/5136538/ultimate-aero-ev-ssc-plans-to-build-worlds-fastest-electric-production-car)
Watch out Tesla, Fisker and Volt.
01-24-2009, 04:29 AM
I roughly calculate that if the average HP it takes to go 65 mph for 200 miles is 20 then it's impossible to recharge such a car in anything like 10 minutes with the typical 200 amp household service. 20 hp is equivalent to 14880 watts. The motor would have to average that output for roughly 3 hours. That's 44,640 watt hours. The typical house with a 200 amp service can only put out 2200 watts if everything else is turned off. In ten minutes it can put out about 366 watt hours.
I would really love to see an all electric*automotive future and I don't mean to nitpick but this is a pretty big nit. The real point being that the claims made by those with much to gain in this area have to be looked at carefully.
01-24-2009, 07:26 AM
I didn't do the calculations but I figued right off the batt there's something they're not telling us in that 10 minute charge off a 110 outlet to go 200 miles. It take the Tesla about 6 hours to charge for a 200 mile spin. Maybe be it's down a 200 mile mountain slope off the Himayalas. But that Aero is an impressive looking vehicle.
UPDATE ON THE SHELBY RECHARGE TIME WILD CLAIMS- Since then, the company has been subject to intense speculation that some of it’s claims about the EVs performance were, how can I put this, a trifle over ambitious. In fact, a growing majority of critics have publicly ridiculed Shelby’s claim that the Aero’s battery will feature a 10 minute re-charge capability via a 110v outlet, saying that it simply defies the laws of the known universe.
In the face of a mass muttering and rolling of eyes, (whatever that looks like), SSC has executed a swift U-turn and revised its earlier announcement. In a hastily published press release, Shelby first downgraded its claims to a more feasible 220v service. The company then back-pedalled even further, and removed all references to the voltage source........
So now I guess they may come up with something like 2400 Volts at 30 Amps in 10 minutes.
02-11-2009, 04:56 PM
Forbes article. Crisis bodes well for electric cars. (http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/09/electric-cars-hydrogen-business_0210_oxford.html)
With new technologies such as silicon nanowires in lithium batteries which yield 10 times the power of today's laptop batteries Silcon nanowire battery tech (http://www.physorg.com/news117212815.html) and refueling strategies incorporated within the smart grid this electric vehicle revolution is looking more likely.
Also check out this website. gas 2.0 (http://gas2.org/)
and this World's Fastest Production Electric Motorcycle- 150 MPH (http://gas2.org/2009/02/04/mission-motors-intros-the-worlds-fastest-production-electric-motorcycle/#more-1690)
Then there's this detailed report on the Better Place Electric car system (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp78rfNkfrY&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/10/better-place-electric-car_n_165741.html&feature=player_embedded)
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.