The Obama Administration’s dream of seeing 1 million electric vehicles on the road is laudable and necessary, but it’s going to require a Herculean effort if we’re to pull it off.According to the article, it will take innovation, cooperation between industry and government, expanded infrastructure, and high production targets.
They seem to have overlooked one little detail in this plan that is more suited to a 1930s tractor factory in Stalingrad: People don't want ghastly little G-Wizes that can't outrun a moped, make you choose between the windscreen wipers and the headlamps, take hours to recharge and have so small a range that going into town for a loaf of bread becomes a ten-mile walk home. Apparently, the idea of letting private industry follow the profit motive and produce a practical vehicle that people actually prefer never entered Mr Obama's Olympian mind.
The only question is, how many tables does Mr Obama wish to see built?
10 comments:
Personally, if I hear one more "green activist" saying that the only thing holding electric cars back is battery technology, I'm going to grab said activist by his Greenpeace T-shirt and say (as calmly as I can) "Batteries do not generate electricity, they only store and release it. You need to have something to generate the electricity to begin with. And if you're using a coal-fired powerplant to do it, you're just hiding the effluent, not getting rid of it."
If the greenie than begins yammering about Holy Wind and Holy Sun, I may lose my temper.
If The One were serious about this, He would be fast-tracking nuclear powerplants now, so that the capacity will be there when we need it. Since He isn't, I conclude He is BSing yet again. Which seems to be all He's good for. Then again, He is an idiot, by all indications.
I believe He will only be happy when we are all freezing in the dark, in caves. Except for Himself, of course.
cheers
eon
Mind if an engineer chimes in? I think that given the proper magical batteries, electric could work. Said batteries would need to have a reasonable size and weight for a reasonable range. The charging method would have to get one back on the road in five minutes rather than several hours. Leakage current would have to be negligible, and internal resistance small for when one opens up to pass that tractor-trailer (or moped). In the event of an accident, or normal end of life, the site should not need to declared off limits to everything but cockroaches for 10,000 years. In general, the technology should not rely on rare elements which can only be sourced from our friends in China.
In other words, if we developed batteries that had the properties of a tank of gas, then we could start talking about (realistically) building nuclear powerplants to charge them all.
By the way, since Hussein Husseinovich has put his pigeon-chested weight behind it, at least we know that it's doomed to failure. Man (and I use the word loosely) could set out to slip on a banana peel, and he'll discover anti-gravity. (Note to self: is it too late to go for that Ph.D. in physics?)
Does anyone come on mind with the word ethanol fuel cell ?
But we can always build those Fischer-Tropsch plants should the oil price rise too high. The Arabs may have to learn to drink their oil then.
If we had nuclear power plants humming along making energy to burn, along with the capacity to reprocess the spent fuel, all this greenie stuff like hydrogen and batteries would be just fine.
My personal preference would be roadside induction coils that radiate electricity up from the road to the underside of a batteryless 20 foot long electric 1959 Buick.
Nothing would suit me more than to have NOT to drive some pint sized go cart since the energy would all be "green".
Wouldn't that torque the huggers?
Ironmistress: I wonder how much energy there is in a liter of ethanol. Last time we tried, burning the stuff in the usual way, it turned out that the best way to use it to run a car, was as payment for a bunch of frat boys to go push. And also, food riots in places that depended on crops that the ethanol replaced. Are fuel cells significantly more efficient? Are we talking about diverting biomass from food/silage/paper manufacture? Having the same fuel for my Jeep and myself would be great, and OPEC can indeed go do something unmentionable, and preferably extremely uncomfortable.
Niel Russell: I like my off-road capability. Energy that is essentially free would be great, but maybe a place where I could plug in some Duracells so I can go camping. Or to power a boat engine, etc.
Ironmistress: I wonder how much energy there is in a liter of ethanol.
That one is easy. It is 33.18 MJ/kg while that of gasoline is 46.4 MJ/kg. Since both are less dense than water, the values per liter are 24 MJ/l and 34.2 MJ/l respectively
Last time we tried, burning the stuff in the usual way, it turned out that the best way to use it to run a car, was as payment for a bunch of frat boys to go push.
It depends. Ethanol has the natural octane number of 107 - it burns more cleanly than gasoline.
And also, food riots in places that depended on crops that the ethanol replaced.
The good thing with ethanol is that it doesn't need to be made from crops. Any fermentable carbohydrates - especially food leftovers - will do. Ethanol can also be synthetized via Fischer-Tropsch from syngas or cathalytically from ethylene and water. Actually it is pretty stupid to grow plants for making ethanol while perfectly fermentable garbage is carried to landfills.
Are fuel cells significantly more efficient?
Yes. They convert chemical energy directly to electricity. Their efficiency is around 90% to 95% while that of Otto engines based on Carnot cycle are around 35%.
Are we talking about diverting biomass from food/silage/paper manufacture?
Why not? It would be otherwase wasted anyway. The garbage of one factory could well be the feedstock of another.
Having the same fuel for my Jeep and myself would be great, and OPEC can indeed go do something unmentionable, and preferably extremely uncomfortable.
Exactly. I really would like to see the Arabs learning to drink their oil. The sooner we'd get rid of imported fuels, the better.
To be honest, I (a driver) only care about the range I'm getting out of a tank of fuel. .35*34.2 gives 12 MJ, usable, /l * losses in the rest of the powertrain. .95*24 gives 22.8, * whatever efficiency your electric system---motors, wiring, controllers, etc.---gets, and also, intriguingly, plus whatever you can win back in city driving through regenerative braking and a small battery pack. Unlike the case with burning the ethanol, these numbers look like viable. Ethanol is a small molecule made up of all-natural parts, C/O/H, and I don't think that these can be recombined into something too toxic on the other side of the catalyst.
Next question is generation. I'll admit that I've never been friends with chemistry. But I see that the last time ethanol was going to Save us All while making the polar bears' breath all minty fresh, the go-to method was growing the stuff the old-fashioned way. In that case, the corn (maize) seeds as well as the stems, can go into the fermenter, meaning that the seed-eaters (people) and the cow farms need to pay more for these parts. I would assume that if there were a better way of obtaining large amounts of ethanol than growing it, this would have been used as well. Hippie types can run their cars on bio-diesel from the local McDonalds, but you can't run a country's worth of cars that way: difference between small- and large-scale operations.
But, from this short discussion and the back of a virtual envelope (coworker's going-away party last night---I think my head might forgive me eventually...), putting ethanol in fuel cells may be a thing to do. Electric motors and control electronics are things I can play with (I've done some minor Jeep repairs, but nothing major, and nothing lately). Force me to buy immature technology for the sake of hypothetical white bears and I'll resent you. But give me an electric system with maybe a Linux box to play Nethack on as the brain, and I just might buy the shiny toy. Aesop: "The Sun and the Wind got into a spitting contest..."
To be honest, I (a driver) only care about the range I'm getting out of a tank of fuel. .35*34.2 gives 12 MJ, usable, /l * losses in the rest of the powertrain. .95*24 gives 22.8, * whatever efficiency your electric system---motors, wiring, controllers, etc.---gets, and also, intriguingly, plus whatever you can win back in city driving through regenerative braking and a small battery pack.
Yes. The Otto engine is a god-awfully inefficient way to convert chemical energy into kinetic energy. Besides that, a combustion engine needs transmission which the electric motor doesn't.
I just wonder why there aren't diesel-electric cars around - that technology is tested and tried on both ships and railway rolling stock. A diesel-electric car would have its engine working always on the optimal rpm, it would need no transmission and each of the wheels could well have their own motors, eliminating the need of separate traction mechanisms. An electric motor has superior acceleration properties compared to combustion engine. The fuel economy of a diesel-electric arrangement is up to 40% better than with direct diesel traction.
Unlike the case with burning the ethanol, these numbers look like viable. Ethanol is a small molecule made up of all-natural parts, C/O/H, and I don't think that these can be recombined into something too toxic on the other side of the catalyst.
Ethanol will burn quite clean. Besides that, it won't need any additives to raise octane number as it has very good anti-knock properties.
When my country was last time in was and the imports of gasoline were effectively cut, our authorities added up to 28% ethanol into gasoline. It was obtained as a by-product of sulphite cellulose process. No problems were reported.
The worst problem with combustion engines and ethanol is not the power output or properties of the engines, but the durability of the fuel lines. Most cars today use rubber or plastic fuel lines which may be corroded by ethanol or methanol.
Here is an article on fuel cells - my bet is that they will eventually supercede combustion engines where viable.
Next question is generation. I'll admit that I've never been friends with chemistry.
*smile* Guess what I have studied? (Hint: "ironmistress" is feminine for "ironmaster"...)
But I see that the last time ethanol was going to Save us All while making the polar bears' breath all minty fresh, the go-to method was growing the stuff the old-fashioned way.
Grrr. That's what you get when your politicians are s700p1d and your businessmen gr33d1. Growing the stuff is the most stupid way on making ethanol - especially for fuel; far more efficient is to use garbage. Some 15% to 30% of all food in the Western world is wasted; if all those leftovers could be fermented and converted into ethanol, there would be no need for growing anything into biofuel.
I would assume that if there were a better way of obtaining large amounts of ethanol than growing it, this would have been used as well.
There is, but unfortunately it is chemical engineering which neither the politicians nor businessmenn understand. They just want to go over where the fence is lowest and what is most trivial. [Hey, they grow sugar for making vodka, it must be the same process for making biofuels as well...]
I have talked with both businessmen and politicians. We nerds just dwell in completely other sphere. The businessmen understand only money and short-term interests while talking with the politicians is like talking to children - they have only superficial understanding of sciences and engineering.
The most efficient way of producing bioethanol is the waste liquor of sulphite cellulose process. Likewise, the bakery industry produces an awfully lot of carbohydrate waste, which can easily be fermented and converted into biofuel. Paper waste can be turned enzymatically into fermentable carbohydrates. It is just that politicians and businessmen have no understanding on things like that.
The same applies to synthetic fuels as well. Very few of them have ever heard of Fischer-Tropsch process or Karrick or Bergius processes. What one doesn't know he doesn't understand - and won't finance. It is far more easy to get financing for producing biofuels in the stupid way (growing plants).
But, from this short discussion and the back of a virtual envelope (coworker's going-away party last night---I think my head might forgive me eventually...), putting ethanol in fuel cells may be a thing to do.
Yup. Currently the biggest issue is the lifespan of the fuel cells - they endure some 5000 hours of use, equalling 150 000 km, which is somewhat too little for practical use.
Post a Comment