Car Talk

[dvv]

Originally Posted by a.wayne

@dvv,

We are a long way from such , maybe KERS on all 4 wheels with an 600cc gas/ diesel eng pulling 180mpg . Full electric is not possible with current battery technology and large carbon footprint.

Bio-gas is also an alternative (algae) would allow 20:1 cr , clean breathable emissions and leaner mixtures, TQ of diesel with gasolene hp .

What's "KERS"?

Full electric is possible, of course, but the range is very small. Agreed, batteries are the key problem, however, I suspect that when pushed far and strongly enough, the industry could do better - MUCH better.

I think if the auto industry standardized, the push forward would be quicker. At least, the battery manufacturers would know what they are aiming for.

As for bio fuels, I understand the Norwegian process included livestock dung as well. Algae are nice, but livestock dung is even more accessible.

[a.wayne]

Originally Posted by Charles Darwin

Could you elucidate a bit more since I can not make any sense from this post at all?

Not sure I understand what it is you want to know ... You made a statement about emissions , I asked if you are comparing bio-fuels to bio-fuels ..

Originally Posted by dvv

What's "KERS"?

KERS.... Kinetic energy recovery system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by dvv

Full electric is possible, of course, but the range is very small. Agreed, batteries are the key problem, however, I suspect that when pushed far and strongly enough, the industry could do better - MUCH better.

I think if the auto industry standardized, the push forward would be quicker. At least, the battery manufacturers would know what they are aiming for.

As for bio fuels, I understand the Norwegian process included livestock dung as well. Algae are nice, but livestock dung is even more accessible.

Algae is where the big money is going .... Bio-ethanol is a viable fuel IMO, but would require different engine specs, if done it would be better than going with electric cars .

Much smaller carbon foot print ...

[tvrgeek]

Originally Posted by a.wayne

Not sure I understand what it is you want to know ... You made a statement about emissions , I asked if you are comparing bio-fuels to bio-fuels ..




KERS.... Kinetic energy recovery system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Algae is where the big money is going .... Bio-ethanol is a viable fuel IMO, but would require different engine specs, if done it would be better than going with electric cars .

Much smaller carbon foot print ...

Algae, seaweed, switchgrass, no one knows yet. Quite debatable if it is a lower carbon footprint with today's processes. It also depends on where the electricity comes from. It is darn hard to overcome the volume/weight density of a liquid hydrocarbon and the ability to just fill a tank. On the other hand, an electric motor is far more efficient at acceleration and variable speed than a heat engine. ( max torque at stall vs max torque at peak RPM) Every time you convert from one form to another, you lose. Every time you transport you lose. Darn complicated and none of the "sides" will give any straight answers. Without being an insider, we are just blowing smoke out of somewhere.

[SoNic_real_one]

Originally Posted by a.wayne

Bio-ethanol is a viable fuel IMO, but would require different engine specs

You didn't see yet on cars the Flex Fuel labels? Those can use bio-ethanol that you talk about. They are some millions on streets and they use almost the same engine. Sure, if it would be tunned exclusivelly for ethanol, it might be more efficient, but there are not enough stations for that.
Problem is that producing all those "bio" fuels is VERY inefficient, require lots of land, water... and require lots of heat to process.
In the end is not that much "cleaner".

[CBS240]

Exchangeable fuel cell modules would be the cleanest source, provided that they were 'charged' at solar stations, geo, or other 'clean' energy. Besides, an electric motor/servo drive system is waaaayyyyy more efficient than the typical internal combution engine with all those moving parts.....

although this solution does not sound cheap to get started in mass production. But then niether is the new US government funded 100K+ car, produced in a forgien country BTW, particularly when it doen't even work!

[a.wayne]

Originally Posted by tvrgeek

Algae, seaweed, switchgrass, no one knows yet. Quite debatable if it is a lower carbon footprint with today's processes. It also depends on where the electricity comes from. It is darn hard to overcome the volume/weight density of a liquid hydrocarbon and the ability to just fill a tank. On the other hand, an electric motor is far more efficient at acceleration and variable speed than a heat engine. ( max torque at stall vs max torque at peak RPM) Every time you convert from one form to another, you lose. Every time you transport you lose. Darn complicated and none of the "sides" will give any straight answers. Without being an insider, we are just blowing smoke out of somewhere.

Algae is most viable and where most is investing. Currently ethanol from cane is the leader , but is not sustainable as an replacement, where algae can .

Originally Posted by SoNic_real_one

You didn't see yet on cars the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible-fuel_[B][/B]. They are some millions on streets and they use almost the same engine. Sure, if it would be tunned exclusivelly for ethanol, it might be more efficient, but there are not enough stations for that.
Problem is that producing all those "bio" fuels is VERY inefficient, require lots of land, water... and require lots of heat to process.
In the end is not that much "cleaner".

Ok .. Brainiac

They have the wrong specification for bio-ethanol, there engines are optimized for gasoline , so they are inefficient on ethanol, they are flex-fuel only due to the polemics coming out of Washington.


Bio-ethanol only makes economic sense coming from Algae...next is sugar cane...

[a.wayne]

Currently Electric cars have 30-40% more carbon foot print than gasoline powered cars..

[tvrgeek]

Originally Posted by a.wayne

Currently Electric cars have 30-40% more carbon foot print than gasoline powered cars..

One does need to include the total life cycle. It also depends on if the electricity is from a coal plant, which most are. We also have the problem of rare earth metals. Guess why they are called "rare"?

We still need to reduce the total energy used. There is no way the world can sustain another 3 billion Chinese and a billion more Indian drivers unless we quit making 3400 Lb compact cars and 4500 Lb sport utes.

[theAnonymous1]

Originally Posted by tvrgeek

There is no way the world can sustain another 3 billion Chinese.....

^ Quote taken slightly out of context, but it reminded me of a package I mailed to Tseung Kwan O, Hong Kong today. The address format seemed off, so I was trying to research it and stumbled upon images of the destination.

Should humans really live like this? Reminds me of the Matrix......

Tiu Keng Leng, Tseung Kwan O, New Territories, Hong Kong - YouTube

[tvrgeek]

Way ahead of some other places. I agree it is not on a human scale, but vastly better than half the world.