Members evets618 Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 Be careful out there... Stay hydrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members echodeluxe Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 ....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fusion1 Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 Was OP inhaling exhaust fumes again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amp_surgeon Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/27/BAEF1MVJ3V.DTL15% of new cars have to be zero emission by 2025. Companies that sell cars in California and can't produce the required number of zero emission vehicles will have to buy carbon credits from companies that can. Total emissions have to be cut by 2/3.So, what the hell are we going to do with the all the lithium waste from all those electric cars? It's already illegal in California to put lithium batteries in land fills. They're full of carcinogenic chemicals. Zero emission does not equate to zero waste in the case of electric cars. They'll probably charge us thousands of dollars up front for recycling, like they do with aluminum cans.There was a French company a few years back that had a really awesome idea. They designed an engine made of high temp steel and ceramic that ran on compressed air. They converted a utility van to run on their engine. It could go nearly 200 miles on a fully charged 50 gallon tank loaded at 250 psi, and it could be refilled with compressed air in five minutes. It's not "zero emission", but the emissions are only regular air. There's also zero waste. I thought it would be awesome to have a car that ran on compressed air, and a solar powered compressor at my house that spent the day refilling my recharge tank. I'd be driving for free, and it's totally green! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zappa74 Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 {censored} these ridiculous electric cars packed with hundreds of lbs of batteries. Bring on the hydrogen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/27/BAEF1MVJ3V.DTL 15% of new cars have to be zero emission by 2025. Companies that sell cars in California and can't produce the required number of zero emission vehicles will have to buy carbon credits from companies that can. Total emissions have to be cut by 2/3. So, what the hell are we going to do with the all the lithium waste from all those electric cars? It's already illegal in California to put lithium batteries in land fills. They're full of carcinogenic chemicals. Zero emission does not equate to zero waste in the case of electric cars. They'll probably charge us thousands of dollars up front for recycling, like they do with aluminum cans. There was a French company a few years back that had a really awesome idea. They designed an engine made of high temp steel and ceramic that ran on compressed air. They converted a utility van to run on their engine. It could go nearly 200 miles on a fully charged 50 gallon tank loaded at 250 psi, and it could be refilled with compressed air in five minutes. It's not "zero emission", but the emissions are only regular air. There's also zero waste. I thought it would be awesome to have a car that ran on compressed air, and a solar powered compressor at my house that spent the day refilling my recharge tank. I'd be driving for free, and it's totally green! Thanks for the link. You have a very good point about the lithium batteries. The compressed air engine sounds interesting, but unfortunately, there are some significant engineering challenges. They tend to be very low torque. The typical service station air compressor can't put out anywhere near 250 psi, and most home units do even less, so they'd need purpose-built "filling stations" and at-home compressors of sufficient power. There's also the safety concerns of a big 250 psi cylinder - you'd probably want to protect that from getting punctured in an accident. And while you do have non-polluting emissions from the vehicle itself (since the engine's running on air, I'd call that zero, or at least "neutral and non-toxic" emissions - YMMV), a compressed air engine doesn't eliminate emissions - it just generates the emissions somewhere else. Instead of burning fossil fuels (diesel, petrol) in the vehicle's internal engine, you're burning some other fossil fuel (natural gas, oil, coal, etc.) to generate the electricity needed to compress the air. And IMHO, that's inefficient. You lose a bit with each conversion. IMHO, it would be more efficient to put the natural gas into the vehicle and burn it as cleanly as possible there, rather than burning it in a big power plant, converting that thermal energy into electricity, converting that into compressed air, and then powering the vehicle with that. I can't prove it, but I suspect it would be lower polluting to do it that way too, due to the improved efficiency. Of course, if you can power the compressor with electricity from solar, then you only have the costs of the solar panels and associated equipment to offset, although you'd still need the infrastructure established elsewhere for longer trips. I doubt you'd be able to transport the charging equipment with you - I suspect that it would require a lot of solar panels to have enough juice to compress that much air to 250 psi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members eti Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 FWIW, lithium battery recycling http://www.biggreenbox.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members victor2k Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 10 to 15 yrs ago, there was this guy on the news where he converted his civic's engine to run on water, w/ zero emissions, guy asking for funding, the government didnt bother,. i think its now the so called "hydrogen" technology.. pretty neat idea but the big petrol companies is not gonna be happy, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zappa74 Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 10 to 15 yrs ago, there was this guy on the news where he converted his civic's engine to run on water, w/ zero emissions, guy asking for funding, the government didnt bother,. i think its now the so called "hydrogen" technology.. pretty neat idea but the big petrol companies is not gonna be happy, Honda has a functioning hydrogen powered car... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AUurBnLbJw Yet all we're getting cars that run on laptop batteries shoved down our throats and being told that they're the future. Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Moustache_Bash Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 If I'm not mistaken, to get that hydrogen for those cars, we still make carbon emissions to make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members victor2k Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 yeah, i think the guy sold out to honda, maybe working there now, hehe.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members eti Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 If I'm not mistaken, to get that hydrogen for those cars, we still make carbon emissions to make it. Not if you use solar power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zappa74 Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 If I'm not mistaken, to get that hydrogen for those cars, we still make carbon emissions to make it. Who gives a {censored} about emissions... its a fuel source that never runs out. That is infinitely more important than emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Moustache_Bash Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 Who gives a {censored} about emissions... its a fuel source that never runs out.That is infinitely more important than emissions. Ehh, there's pros and cons to all these "alternative" energies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 If I'm not mistaken, to get that hydrogen for those cars, we still make carbon emissions to make it. In most cases, I think we do. Unless the plant that generated the electricity needed for the electrolysis of the water (to break it down into hydrogen and oxygen) was powered by geothermal, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, tidal, wind, etc. All of those are used as electrical energy sources, but not nearly to the degree that fossil fuels currently are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Moustache_Bash Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 It's my understanding that we get the hydrogen from methane. And I think methane is made up of 4 Hs and one C(?). And from that we take 2 hydrogens, and what's left over is some hydrogen and carbon still. Regardless, I'm out of my league. I don't really know what the {censored} I'm talking about, except there is no THEE SOLUTION to our problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zappa74 Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 Yeah, there is to this one. Hydrogen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Yeah, there is to this one. Hydrogen. What method of getting it would you use? Steam reforming of natural (methane) gas is the most common commercial source of hydrogen, but it relies on natural gas supplies, and does usually require some methane to be burned in the production process. It is pretty efficient though - they can get 75-80% out of the conversion. Electrolysis is renewable and pretty much totally "green" if it is powered by a renewable energy resource such as solar power. At least until we run out of water. However, it is currently only used for a small percentage of commercial hydrogen production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SpectralJulian Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 I feel that the infrastructure is a part of a problem. Bring back rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bluesguitar65 Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 I think California should learn from China on how to commute instead of using automobiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zappa74 Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 What method of getting it would you use? Steam reforming of natural (methane) gas is the most common commercial source of hydrogen, but it relies on natural gas supplies, and does usually require some methane to be burned in the production process. It is pretty efficient though - they can get 75-80% out of the conversion. Electrolysis is renewable and pretty much totally "green" if it is powered by a renewable energy resource such as solar power. At least until we run out of water. However, it is currently only used for a small percentage of commercial hydrogen production. I'd go to the pump on the corner. Really though, green isn't my concern here. The prospect of truly usable cars that are both extremely reliable and that run on a renewable resource is all I'm interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blazingblake Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 {censored} California you couldnt pay me to live there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members echodeluxe Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 .......says the guy from Oklahoma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RadioSilence Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 10 to 15 yrs ago, there was this guy on the news where he converted his civic's engine to run on water, w/ zero emissions, guy asking for funding, the government didnt bother,. i think its now the so called "hydrogen" technology.. pretty neat idea but the big petrol companies is not gonna be happy, People have been saying this to try to raise funds for decades, it's a total scam.At a small enough scale to have in your car it would take more energy to uncouple the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen than you could then get from the hydrogen.Google "water fuel scam". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hangwire Posted January 28, 2012 Members Share Posted January 28, 2012 Can't you guys leave the poor oil companies alone? leave them alone!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.