'Lectro cars and electric utilities

[navychop]

We've chatted back and forth over how well the electric infrastructure could support a move to electric vehicles. Now some more definitive info is out. See this article. From that article, I'll pull just one phrase:
"Since most electric cars will likely be charged during off-peak electric use times, utilities should have no problem generating enough electricity."

After reading that article, what do you think we'll see in the next 10-20 years, as the strongest trend?

 

[TNGTony]

The only real solution is to MANDATE the elimination of the IC engine in personal vehicles in the next 25 years and that all gasoline stations have at least one hydrogen pump by 2020.

50 years ago researchers were saying fuel cell technology was about 25-30 years away. By 1980 we would be driving hydrogen cars.

In 1975 researchers were saying Fuel Cell technology is 25-30 years away. By the first decade of the 21st century we would all be driving clean hydrogen vehicles.

In 2008 researchers are saying that fuel cell technology is still 20-30 years away.

You know what? In 80 years humanity went from barely being able to fly the length of three football fields under control to flying to the moon! The technology was developed because there was a push to make it so.

Telling the auto manufacturers that in 2035 no new vehicles with internal combustion engines may be sold in the US will kick the research into high gear! It's happened before, it can happen again. And in 2050 no commercial vehicles for use on the road with IC engines!

Extreme? Yup! Out of the question? Nope!

For reactionaries, please keep in mind that I am not talking about removing, destroying, criminalizing the regular automobile ever. I am talking about new vehicle only.

See ya
Tony

 

[Bobby]

The only real solution is to MANDATE the elimination of the IC engine in personal vehicles in the next 25 years and that all gasoline stations have at least one hydrogen pump by 2020.

50 years ago researchers were saying fuel cell technology was about 25-30 years away. By 1980 we would be driving hydrogen cars.

In 1975 researchers were saying Fuel Cell technology is 25-30 years away. By the first decade of the 21st century we would all be driving clean hydrogen vehicles.

In 2008 researchers are saying that fuel cell technology is still 20-30 years away.

You know what? In 80 years humanity went from barely being able to fly the length of three football fields under control to flying to the moon! The technology was developed because there was a push to make it so.

Telling the auto manufacturers that in 2035 no new vehicles with internal combustion engines may be sold in the US will kick the research into high gear! It's happened before, it can happen again. And in 2050 no commercial vehicles for use on the road with IC engines!

Extreme? Yup! Out of the question? Nope!

For reactionaries, please keep in mind that I am not talking about removing, destroying, criminalizing the regular automobile ever. I am talking about new vehicle only.

See ya
Tony

I agree in its entirety Tony. Another thing that should be addressed, along with the auto industry, is the oil industry. If we don't need to buy gasoline, they need to find another way to keep their employees employed as well as fill their pockets.

 

[Van]

1, 2, 5, and maybe 4 and definitely the last but I dont see number 3 being anything more than a curiosity blip at most.

 

[Bob Haller]

its going to be a mixed bag of solutions, and that best. so one problem cant ever muck up our economy again.

My best fiend has run both of his vehicles on CNG since 1973. he has his own military surplus compressor it runs at 1500 pounds.

CNG burns extremely clean

 

[TNGTony]

CNG is also very expensive! I like the idea, but in this area NG has gone up close to 300% in the last ten years. Propaine is cheaper than natural gas here right now. I can't see either as a real permenant alternative.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element int he universe. If you have sunlight silicone and water, you have hydrogen!

See ya
Tony

 

[TheForce]

I would have selected 1, 4,& 5 but stuck to 4 & 5 in your choices. Hybrids are here to stay and just like the automatic transmission and air conditioning, and radios in the dash, combining the IC with electric drive (hybrid) I believe will become the norm and the IC engine as a solo drive system will be as uncommon as the manual transmission or a car without AC. The real increase will be the influx of CNG and all electric commuter cars. After 10 years, we may see some of the more esoteric technologies surface such as hydrogen, and fuel cells. I also believe we are very close to a Federal regulation requiring all gas stations be required to carry E-85 as an option. This I think will happen in the next year with a conversion time deadline of 2012. The rule of the future will be diversity and choice. The days of gasoline and diesel monopoly ( petrofuels) for transportation are over.

 

[TheForce]

CNG is also very expensive! I like the idea, but in this area NG has gone up close to 300% in the last ten years. Propaine is cheaper than natural gas here right now. I can't see either as a real permenant alternative.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element int he universe. If you have sunlight silicone and water, you have hydrogen!

See ya
Tony

Huh? Silicone? Why do you think you need a rubbery polymer to create Hydrogen?

LOL! Silicone is synthesized from silanes which are silicon + 2 methyl + chlorine.

Did you mean Silicon, an element in and of itself? You don't need sunlight nor silicone rubber nor silicon to have Hydrogen!


Latest NG cost per gallon equivalent to gasoline for Natural gas is $1.26 per gallon reported by Clark Howard, but I haven't looked it up or done the math myself.

Back in '77 I built a 150KW electric generator plant for the chemical company I worked for as a backup. I decided on Natural gas fuel back then since we had it in the plant. We also had large #2 fuel oil storage for our boilers. The main advantage of CNG we discovered was how clean the engine ran. Not only did it never need a tuneup, the engine oil lasted for 2 years before testing out of lubricity spec. Even then it looked like new oil since the carbon was non-existent. CNG engines are very clean and very low maintenance. I believe Propane is similar. We have huge NG supplies in the US to supply our increasing needs for the next 100 years with present known supply.


As for cost, I found this USDoE data at this link:

Colorado Natural Gas

While this government chart clearly shows NG being lower cost than LPG for the same time period, it is not current, and I would not go by this as a valid scientific comparison. I would prefer to compare the $ per million BTU of each, rather than the $ per unit volume.
Today, the cost per million BTU -
LPG approximately $20
NG approximately $10

by today's market


So the cost of NG is about half that of LPG if you use it for energy but both are independently market driven..



PS-

Truth is irrelevant when you have a good ad campaign.

This statement speaks volumes about the character and integrity of the person making it.
Any ad campaign that lacks truth will fail and the effect of that failure will have disastrous repercussions.

Reminds me of a news reporter who believed that he should never let the facts get in the way of his story.

 

[ERSanders]

The two drivers of the next motive solution will be technology and distribution infrastructure.

Technology to get battery efficiency up to a level where the output KWH is a lot closer to the input. Now I think it is about 25%. It has to go higher to get cars a range of at least 300 miles on a single charge.

The infrastructure also has to keep pace. If the solution is battery based there must be sufficient electical charging capacity (see efficiency note above) to charge millions of cars on a daily basis (we do NOT have that now, in fact we are near the edge...can you say brownouts?). Nuclear could have the best chance to do this since it can run 24/7 easily with lower incremental cost contrasted to fossile fuels and hydro.

There must also be a tech. solution to the distance travellers; quick charge stations or a battery swap capability (note: all automakers would need to use the same battery---HA!). If the solution is hydrogen, then almost every gas station would need $$$ retrofit. This may be why Exxon Mobil is planning to sell off all of its stations and stick to fuel provisioning.

In any case, gas/diesel/hybrids will be with us for a very long time. This is why it is necessary to go after all the oil/shale we can find...even if it takes ten or more years to get it to market. The export of $700 billion per year, largely to unfriendly nations, has to be throttled back!

 

[Neutron]

They are drilling around here now on something called the Barnett Shale. They say it has enough natural gas to power the entire country for many many years to come.

 

[navychop]

If we can start making ethanol out of other materials than edible/feedstock corn, sugar, etc, then we might see E85 mandated. Whole stalk corn, prairie grass, switch grass, etc. Simply cannot grow enough corn in this country to remotely meet the requirements. We can't even produce enough to replace MTBE as the oxygenator in gasoline.

No one has yet shown a cost effective method of generating hydrogen. Plus, transportation and storage are also concerns, as is dispensing. But there's great hope there- both for burning and for fuel cell use.

"Technology to get battery efficiency up to a level where the output KWH is a lot closer to the input. Now I think it is about 25%. It has to go higher to get cars a range of at least 300 miles on a single charge."
I believe you're thinking of ICEs here. Electromotive systems approach 100%. Very little of the heat losses that are common in gassers. The problem with electric cars is the use of fuel cells (extremely expensive) or batteries (which have their own cost concerns) that have low energy storage per unit volume or even unit weight (which is why gasoline "won" - lotta energy in a cup of gasoline). Or they could use ultracapacitors which charge and discharge faster than batteries, but don't last very long. Heat management is a major concern with battery powered vehicles, and careful charging of many batteries that are aging differently. We certainly seem to be close to major battery advances.

The utility grid is barely utilized overnight. See the article. With time of use metering, we can certainly encourage people to charge late at night. Who'd care? You plug it in, hit a timer switch instead of a power switch, and the car's fully charged by morning.

I don't know what we're going to see in the future (after a period of reliance on shale oil and NG). But I'm convinced the car of 2020 will be way different from the car of today- both in motive power and controls and features.

 

[ERSanders]

...
I believe you're thinking of ICEs here. Electromotive systems approach 100%. Very little of the heat losses that are common in gassers. The problem with electric cars is the use of fuel cells (extremely expensive) or batteries (which have their own cost concerns) that have low energy storage per unit volume or even unit weight (which is why gasoline "won" - lotta energy in a cup of gasoline). Or they could use ultracapacitors which charge and discharge faster than batteries, but don't last very long. Heat management is a major concern with battery powered vehicles, and careful charging of many batteries that are aging differently. We certainly seem to be close to major battery advances.....

You are right about the conversion efficiency of electric vehicles from the battery to the wheels. What I was speaking of was the efficiency from the original power source to the wheels. In the article here Mechanical Engineering Power -- June 2003, feature, "Gauging Efficiency, Well to Wheel" they speak of "well to wheels" efficiency (see the last segment of the article).

 

[jayn_j]

We had just as big of f uel crisis in 1974-5 and what changed?

We will figure out ways to continue justifying gasoline engines right up until the last drop is gone. Hybrids will provide a way of extending, without inconveniencing the population, so we will see more of these, and that's how I answered.

The bottom line is convenience. Americans will not embrace any solution that doesn't allow them to go 300 miles before a 5 minute recharging stop from some "service facility" that is everywhere. We can go to those other fuel types if and only if they appear as reliable and convenient as the present solution.

 

[navychop]

They will if the price is right. Or the price of the old ways gets too high.

We can't go on like we have. Simply cannot keep polluting like we have.

Thanks, ERS, I see your point.

 

[jayn_j]

They will if the price is right. Or the price of the old ways gets too high.

We can't go on like we have. Simply cannot keep polluting like we have.

Maybe it's just that I moved back into the rust belt last year. Half the cars here are full sized pickups/SUVs and the other half are Hemi Chargers. Maybe its because of the Chrysler plant in town, but I would estimate only 1 out of 8 cars is an import here and I see a Prius going by maybe twice a day.

These people have a 'cold dead hands' attitude about big American iron.

 

[denisincalif]

I am disappointed to see all the talk of continued use of fuels which have to be burned (natural gas, propane, gasoline in all its forms including E-85, and even fuel cells). Making the hydrogen to run fuel cells is not trivial. Yes, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. But it does not exist on Earth in significant quantities except when it is chemically bound to other elements (such as in water). When bound, it is not fuel. Free hydrogen is extremely light and escapes from the Earth's gravitational field fairly quickly.

Yes, there is lots of natural gas available. Yes, ethanol is a theoretical renewable resource. Yes there is lots of oil trapped in oil shale. But burning any fuel contributes to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is killing off plant and animal life around the world through the global warming it causes.

I agree that a concentrated government-supported research push is needed right away. But its goal should be the development of solar power and the infrastructure to support it. I have stated all this in an old thread in the pub. The only energy sources which will not contribute significantly to global warming are wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, and solar. Of these, only solar is both sufficiently abundant and nearly harmless to the environment. Wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal do not supply enough energy. Nuclear has all sorts of problems because most uranium mines are in sensitive parts of the world, transported fuel is tempting to terrorists, and handling the waste is a major problem.

What few people realize is that the energy content of sunlight is HUGE and the technology to generate sufficient amounts of electricity is available today. The things which are lacking, and which could benefit from a concentrated research and development program, are all-electric cars which meet the convenience criteria of consumers, the infrastructure to generate large amounts of electricity from sunlight, and the power distribution infrastructure, since most solar energy will have to be generated in the Southwest but of course is needed throughout the country.

 

[ERSanders]

...But burning any fuel contributes to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is killing off plant and animal life around the world through the global warming it causes.....

I understand your argument but plants "breathe" carbon dioxide like we do oxygen. The burning of fuels actually promotes plant growth...which BTW give off oxygen; so the cycle continues.

 

[navychop]

When hydrogen is used in a fuel cell, or even burned, the result is water and very little else. Little or no CO2. It's about as clean as you could hope for.

Solar has it's appeal, but storage costs are excessive. Unless that drawback is addressed, it's use will be limited. And square miles of arrays, with different reflectivity than the land beneath, and the shading effect on that land, will definitely have environmental consequences. Nothing if free, nothing is pure.

All the "information" on nuclear is mostly fervent hopes and beliefs. You'd have to believe technology will stand still to think there won't be a use for that heat generating nuclear waste, or a cost effective neutralizing or containment strategy, be developed in the next 1 or 2 hundred years. So store it in a container safe for 500.

But yes, I certainly agree with the thrust of your post. Need to get away from burning. I'm big on electric vehicles and building subways and trolleys as fast as humanly possible. I believe they should start with 2 or 4 seat commuter electrics, limited range, limited speed. Get them out there and working, get experience, and then build up to trying to match the ICE vehicles.

 

[navychop]

BTW- I no longer see graph bars at the top of this page, just the numbers. Does everyone else see them? Is it just me?

 

[denisincalif]

I understand your argument but plants "breathe" carbon dioxide like we do oxygen. The burning of fuels actually promotes plant growth...which BTW give off oxygen; so the cycle continues.

Yes, but we are emitting FAR more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the plants can process, which is why the concentration of carbon dioxide keeps rising and thus the earth's average temperature keeps rising. Also, deforestation means the plants have even less of a chance to help.