|
GM=CM
Sept 13, 2012 9:56:07 GMT -5
Post by mcnoch on Sept 13, 2012 9:56:07 GMT -5
But Solar cars are not the solution onto which the e-cars are build. There is only marginal progress as that is just an engeneering contest for students.
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 13, 2012 12:38:20 GMT -5
Post by boxcar on Sept 13, 2012 12:38:20 GMT -5
It will probably come as no surprise to anyone that the problem with the electric car is in the battery. There has been nothing new in this area since the lithium battery, which has a tendency to short and cause fires. They might do better with a nine foot sail for power.
As for the world running short of crude oil, we, the United States, have five times the crude reserves of Saudi Arabia, and could exploit (produce) this if the environmentalists will allow us to do so.
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 13, 2012 13:49:38 GMT -5
Post by Sir John on Sept 13, 2012 13:49:38 GMT -5
What I said in my post was that it was slightly off-topic, but the point I was trying to illustrate was that the promised technology advances are VERY slow in coming.
The PV cell was the thing of the future with claims that the technology was in the pipeline to greatly increase the results.
It has not.
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 13, 2012 15:09:12 GMT -5
Post by mcnoch on Sept 13, 2012 15:09:12 GMT -5
Well, the degree of efficiency for the PV cell has increased from about 13,5 % in 2005 (5% in 1975, 10% in 1985) to today 33,9% for mass-market products and about 50% for extremly expensive state of the art ones used by NASA and ESA. So there is a serious increase, but I agree, it still is a bad idea to use PV to move a car. That is something for technology-demonstrators and small Mars Rovers.
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 13, 2012 15:58:26 GMT -5
Post by boxcar on Sept 13, 2012 15:58:26 GMT -5
The design and engineering on this is quite simple. How much energy per unit of area can the sun project? Now increase the area to provide the required energy to do the job. (this says you have already reached 100% efficiency) If the required area is impractical, STOP. You are on the wrong track and wasting time and effort. Move on to another method of locomotion.
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 13, 2012 21:04:06 GMT -5
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 13, 2012 21:04:06 GMT -5
Put your money into cold fusion
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 14, 2012 8:54:35 GMT -5
Post by boxcar on Sept 14, 2012 8:54:35 GMT -5
or rubber bands
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 14, 2012 12:48:01 GMT -5
Post by boxcar on Sept 14, 2012 12:48:01 GMT -5
I still think natural gas is the solution. Oxygen is stored in containers up to 2000 psi ,natural gas could probably be stored at this pressure also. And then there is propane which is a derivative of natural gas and a liquid , used for forklifts etc
And natural gas is a glut on the market today (in the United States) It sells for about $2.50 per thousand cubic feet.
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 15, 2012 20:38:55 GMT -5
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Sept 15, 2012 20:38:55 GMT -5
If only we can convince the EPA and otehr enviro-nuts....
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 15, 2012 20:42:47 GMT -5
Post by Sir John on Sept 15, 2012 20:42:47 GMT -5
Over here, LPG is a major and rapidly growing form of fuel for motor car transport, including mine. I have been using it for 30+ years.
It costs about 30 to 40% of the cost of petrol and gives about 80% of the mileage.
Virtually all service stations sell it.
SJ
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 15, 2012 22:33:20 GMT -5
Post by boxcar on Sept 15, 2012 22:33:20 GMT -5
You present some interesting figures. We use the term propane for LPG, so as not to confuse the term with LNG, which is stored at -265 F.
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 17, 2012 9:08:52 GMT -5
Post by boxcar on Sept 17, 2012 9:08:52 GMT -5
As an example, I believe there may be some confusion on the authors part between LNG and LPG:
Orbital Corporation of Australia has completed a 2,000,000 Kilometer pilot test of a dual-fuel system, LNG and Diesel, for big trucks operated by Toll Mining Services. The system saves a lot of money because LNG is 30 to 40% cheaper than Diesel. The dual fuel capability is a must in Western Australia where the test was run. It can be a long way to the next LNG refuelling point, and the dual fuel means the trucks can revert back to normal diesel operation if the gas runs out.
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 17, 2012 15:23:41 GMT -5
Post by Sir John on Sept 17, 2012 15:23:41 GMT -5
My car, and most using LPG, are in fact 'Dual Fuel' (LPG and Petrol) with about 55 litres in each tank. LPG is available at virtually all service stations around Australia, even in the outback.
I use LPG about 95% of the time. LPG in Australia is a mix of Propane and Butane, but I cannot give the ratio. My system is a FORD factory one installed on the production line and it cost me $2200 extra. Use of LPG has recouped that cost easily.
LNG is in its infancy here, and is used mainly in buses and trucks, but with about the worlds largest reserves of LNG, I expect that will grow rapidly.
|
|
|
GM=CM
Sept 17, 2012 15:25:26 GMT -5
Post by Sir John on Sept 17, 2012 15:25:26 GMT -5
PS,
Don't tell Denny, but Western Australia is about 6 times as big as Texas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
GM=CM
Sept 17, 2012 15:47:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2012 15:47:19 GMT -5
And at least six times as barren, as well!
|
|