DeletedUser
The major problem I see here is that who is going to pay for all that? Last I checked the world economy is not doing so well. And how are they going to make money off the consumer to pay for all that electricity?
DeletedUser
All they need to do is aim for the main highways, make it part of the U.S. stimulus plan. Other countries can consider similar limited routes (autobahn, etc). It is, I agree, a potentially expensive venture, they have succeeded in putting up fiber-optics in a good portion of homes, and that was straight up to their driveways...
DeletedUser
You cannot compare strands of glass covered by insulation with millions of tons of concrete steel and multiple power plants. That's not even close to the same thing. And if you only make major highways how are ppl going to get their wireless electric cars there? And as far as fiber optics go, you have to pay a premium to use it; how are they going to charge ppl for wireless electricity?
It would be a great idea but its not really feasible to implement.
DeletedUser
seriously?
You know, I traveled east and west, north and south, to just about all parts of the U.S., just in the past year. If I had not seen it with my own eyes, I would not have imagined just how many roads have been made in the U.S. Highways spanning every which way and other. They were built, when most everyone held to your assumptions --- that it couldn't be done. But Eisenhower saw what was done by the Third Reich during WWII (highways to expedite troop movements) and knew it could be done, so he set about to make it happen. Now, the U.S. has the most extensive, and one of the best built, road systems in the world.
So, if you think something can't be done, or isn't affordable, let me tell you that you're grossly underestimating the power of a nation and its willing workforce (and that goes for any nation).
Of course you can't, but you can compare it to what it really is -- fiber optic cables, digging holes for miles of piping to secure those cables, and the associated power plants that are required to manage the additional energy passing through those cables.
Actually, setting up fiber optic cabling to most every household, that's quite a bit more.
lol, seriously? Electric cars have batteries... those batteries can hold a charge enabling them to travel 100 miles before a recharge. This technology merely keeps those batteries charged. By aiming only for the highways, you cover the vast majority of distance driving.
The same way they charge people to use toll roads, or to pay for just about anything else related to road maintenance (taxation).
O Rly? Did you do the homework already? Did you do the math? Or are you just jumping to a conclusion based on the buttload of erroneous assumptions you made, just in your last post?
You know, I traveled east and west, north and south, to just about all parts of the U.S., just in the past year. If I had not seen it with my own eyes, I would not have imagined just how many roads have been made in the U.S. Highways spanning every which way and other. They were built, when most everyone held to your assumptions --- that it couldn't be done. But Eisenhower saw what was done by the Third Reich during WWII (highways to expedite troop movements) and knew it could be done, so he set about to make it happen. Now, the U.S. has the most extensive, and one of the best built, road systems in the world.
So, if you think something can't be done, or isn't affordable, let me tell you that you're grossly underestimating the power of a nation and its willing workforce (and that goes for any nation).
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser16008
Meh if all they are going to do is main roads why not just use maglev technology ? all you are doing is going back and forth right ? why waste time on electric ? unless your gonna call em electric trains or trams and I think thats been done before and only needs a bit of cable and some iron lines so they say, plus you can consider lots of people using the thing at the same time if made big enough and be even greener oh and take a bicycle with you for those extra few miles and get fit at the same time 
Sorry but I find the idea stupid, limited, hugely and prohibitively expensive as a proper network and more worthy of a high school rather than coming out of Stanford.
Cheers rice best laugh ive had this week
Sorry but I find the idea stupid, limited, hugely and prohibitively expensive as a proper network and more worthy of a high school rather than coming out of Stanford.
Cheers rice best laugh ive had this week
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Comparing digging lines for cables and creating a new highway system is a stretch. the energy required to send light patterns though those cables is nowhere near what it costs to power vehicle traffic. The whole "they did it for fiber" argument does not hold water as not every one even uses fiber and is used mostly by large businesses. The cost of fiber out weighs the benefits for most consumers.
As far as the batteries go; if you need batteries anyway then the problem remains that batteries go bad, and are prohibitively expensive to replace. This technology just is not ready; its in its infancy.
I think Vic has the right idea with mag-lift trains. This is a proven technology used in other places. The biggest problem right now is still the economy. That needs to take priority over gold-plaiting. You should not spend a lot money if you are deep in debt.
DeletedUser25606
Without getting too into this , "you should not spend a lot of money if you are in debt" as willy pointed to , sorry willy but thats exactly when big econmoies DO spend a lot of money .(do you guys just make up your statements ? I've always understood debating as opinion based based in fact )
I'll explain (really basically & quickly) : if say a country (and for arguments sake we'll say a significant economy) if in debt , and it's relevant to point to that bieng in debt is'nt always a bad thing and sometimes by ecomonic design its essentail in some cases , however , it's also fair to point to that a drop in consumer confidence is generally always negative to goods and services ,(that is to say people hang on to thier money ,people wont get major works done ,so a sector for example in construction are at risk from flat out shortage of work and this is where debt DOES compound into the workforce,and unemployment is whats a truely negative factor to any government in relation to tax revenue,levy's and revenue gathering and GDP) ,what governments tend to do is "stimulate" the economy , generally in major works (i wont get complicated and mention the finance sector) , bolstering jobs , and the benefits are better infrastrure.
Point of example (and there are many), Australia : in the hieght of the last GFC the labour government introduced a program where each state school got a grant , and a got a time frame to spend it in , instantly that bolstered the construction sector and it's estimated that for a six month period it was the main source of work for the majority of the industry , and that's not including the nationwide "fibre optics" plan ,let alone many highway upgrades .
Incidently Honda has released a hydrogen cell car ,personally i think it's a more viable option ,calaforina already has (limited ) "gas stations" that cater to it , would it be more cost efficant to introduce and extra bowser nation at service stations that have this feature ? I think at the very least it's an alternative .( http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/ )
I'll explain (really basically & quickly) : if say a country (and for arguments sake we'll say a significant economy) if in debt , and it's relevant to point to that bieng in debt is'nt always a bad thing and sometimes by ecomonic design its essentail in some cases , however , it's also fair to point to that a drop in consumer confidence is generally always negative to goods and services ,(that is to say people hang on to thier money ,people wont get major works done ,so a sector for example in construction are at risk from flat out shortage of work and this is where debt DOES compound into the workforce,and unemployment is whats a truely negative factor to any government in relation to tax revenue,levy's and revenue gathering and GDP) ,what governments tend to do is "stimulate" the economy , generally in major works (i wont get complicated and mention the finance sector) , bolstering jobs , and the benefits are better infrastrure.
Point of example (and there are many), Australia : in the hieght of the last GFC the labour government introduced a program where each state school got a grant , and a got a time frame to spend it in , instantly that bolstered the construction sector and it's estimated that for a six month period it was the main source of work for the majority of the industry , and that's not including the nationwide "fibre optics" plan ,let alone many highway upgrades .
Incidently Honda has released a hydrogen cell car ,personally i think it's a more viable option ,calaforina already has (limited ) "gas stations" that cater to it , would it be more cost efficant to introduce and extra bowser nation at service stations that have this feature ? I think at the very least it's an alternative .( http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/ )
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Being in debt is never positive. The only reason debt can be considered is if the Return on investment (a positive thing) out weighs the negative Interest paid out. To convince me that this new electric car technology would be a good investment I would need a solid cost analysis and a good return on investment analysis based on similar projects.
You mentioned consumer confidence; well the value of a countries' currency is based on confidence in that countries' ability to pay back its debts. When those debts start to spiral out of control the credit rating drops and the value of that currency drops. This is already happening in the US. This is not something I made up.
I still think a mass transit system would be a better government based investment, like the mag-rail, but for private industry this looks very promising.
DeletedUser25606
can someone else explain basic econmonics to this guy please , ive had enough of copy and pasting basic background knowledge of arguments.
As for currency , there's a myriad of reasons currency rises and drops , a lot of cases its artifical intensionally due to fiscal poilicy arghhhhh enough , im done
As for currency , there's a myriad of reasons currency rises and drops , a lot of cases its artifical intensionally due to fiscal poilicy arghhhhh enough , im done
DeletedUser
So you are saying the value of a countries' currency has no link to confidence in that countries ability to continue to as a sovereign nation?
If the US allows its' debt to spiral out of control they will lose the ability to borrow money. If they lose the ability to borrow money the country will collapse. If the county collapses the money will have no value. As the risk of this happening goes up investing in it becomes more risky; therefore the value drops.
Seems I am not the one who needs a lesson in economics.
DeletedUser
Umm, he didn't say that at all. Trying to put words in people's mouths (or fingers)? That's a form of fallacious reasoning and isn't going to go well for you if you continue that route.
Anyway, currency has a lot of factors that influence whether it goes up or down, in relation to other currencies, but it's not simple and clearly not as simple as you inferred in your earlier posts.
See, that's where you get in trouble. You posed a slippery slope fallacy (fallacious reasoning, false logic). Not only are your assertions presumptive, but inaccurate at every step, precisely because honestly "don't know" what will happen after this or that, but also because you pose a "what if" scenario without even bothering to discuss how that situation even relates to paying for road work.
Point is, it doesn't. If any nation is going to pose road work, or any other national infrastructure investment (and yes, it's an investment), you can be damn sure they'll do the homework required to ensure it doesn't destabilize their financial state (unless, of course, another George Bush Jr. gets in office). I'll break your slippery slope into their respective parts, and show how you glossed over everything to come to your erroneous conclusion:
Willy said, "If the US allows its' debt to spiral out of control they will lose the ability to borrow money."
Unlike personal loans, the mere fact that a nation has a debt provides it leverage to obtain more loans (refinances, at the least). Nations have assets and they have political influence. Both of those mean something, particularly to banks. Perhaps you should read up on this facet, the basis for your assertions, and you'll see the flaw in your foundation. Anyway, you're assuming that spending money on infrastructure will result in debt spiraling out of control. That assumption is incorrect. Infrastructure expenditures are investments that not only create jobs within a nation, but provide greater value to the nation as a whole. It's a selling point to investors, to bankers, to voters, and to politicians who aren't hellbent on saving their political party from extinction (as in the U.S. case, with the Republican Party).
Willy said, "If they lose the ability to borrow money the country will collapse."
No, it won't, and Argentina is a prime example that your assertion is false. Willy said, "If the county collapses the money will have no value."
Again, incorrect, and again I can point to Argentina as a prime example (except the country didn't collapse). You assume a country will collapse, then assume that currency will likewise collapse, but currency is artificially attached to a nation's assets, CPI, GDP, and a few other fun little things having to do with the country as a whole, not merely its ability to borrow money.Seriously, that's just silly.
Willy said, "As the risk of this happening goes up investing in it becomes more risky; therefore the value drops."
Okay, this is going to the notion it hasn't happened yet but will result in the former, thus causing the latter, so you posed a circular argument (also a form of fallacious reasoning, false logic).Anyway, I'm assuming you mean currency when you state, "therefore the value drops." You're arguing the value of currency drops before a nation "loses control of its debt," but argued that the value of currency drops because a nation "loses control of its debt," and also argued that the value of currency drops after a nation "loses control of its debt." You see how silly you're getting? All this based on erroneous assumptions.
And that's where all of this stands, you're speculating what may or may not happen if a nation loses control of its debt based on the discussion that has to do with expending money to build infrastructure that is geared to stabilize and strengthen a nation's overall independence from the influence of such organizations as OPEC, and to reduce the impact on the environment, thereby standing as an example to the rest of the world on what to do right.
And from there, you assume, "we're all gonna die!!!!"
Sorry Willy, your logic has flown the coop, gone out the window, pooped on a hat. Your arguments are not merely flawed, they're silly.
But they wouldn't. That's not how people move around in the U.S. (most parts that is). Public transportation exists, don't get me wrong, and they have an electric/hydrogen public transportation system, but the vast majority of Americans (and I assume by your comments you're referring to the U.S.) travel about on personal vehicles. This is partly due to things being so damn spread out (particularly in the mid and west).
So no, the solution needs to address private transportation, personal vehicles and, in particular, local/regional traffic. Instituting this sort of technology (assuming ample electric automobiles) would work effectively to reduce emissions and break the dependency on oil, thereby causing OPEC to lose influence in the state of the U.S. economy (which itself increases its viability and makes it a better investment).
Hmm, you're performing the same error that Willy made, which is "assuming" it will be expensive and prohibitive, without even examining just what it would entail, and thus not know the expense of such, nor the savings, nor the means to recoup the losses, etc.
There's this state called Florida, where roads were built to travel all over the friggin' place --- over swampland. That's essentially what Florida is, a huge piece of swampland that's greater than the size of Italy (almost the size of Great Britain). And yet, it was done, and these roads (constantly sinking, getting washed away, overgrown, etc) are maintained through tolls and State taxes. But they exist, and they are actually not merely a good bit of revenue for the State, but a boon to the local economy.
Yes it was expensive to build, yes it's expensive to maintain, but smart people with a vision made it happen. Now Florida houses some of the greatest amusement parks, NASA, military facilities, tourist spots, and the best mosquito abatement program in the world.
The highway system ALREADY EXISTS. Geez, stop trying to give false argument here Willy...
What this proposes is to add a series of devices in the roads to increase the viability of electric vehicles. It could be done in steps, initiated in the roundabout highways that encircle many of the major eastern U.S. cities, then expand from there. It can be done, and it can be done in a cost-effective manner.
Hehe, you just outed yourself there Willy. Here, do some reading:
http://ctcnet.us/community anchor construction costs_092209.pdf
U.S. Department of Transportation Fiber Optic Study --> <click here>
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=NFOEC-2011-JWA084
I would also like to point out you are assuming conventional energy grids. It is feasible to consider that such technologies will come with additional energy utilities, such as point-to-point solar panel boosters or even small-frame wind turbines (exploiting the wind turbulence created by vehicles driving by, as a silly example).
Indeed, and your argument is just as poor in water retention. You assume a global, one-step installation as the means to institute this electric booster endeavor. Fiber optics wasn't instituted in that fashion, why create a strawman argument just so you could claim this electric booster is a bad idea? It's just not a sincere approach to arguing the topic.
Wow, seriously? Where have you been? Please do some research on battery technology, particularly in application to electric vehicles. Also, from what I understand of this particular technology, the boosters, it is going to be using capacitors, not batteries, which gives it a far greater level of efficiency. So, basically, what you're now arguing is that electric cars are bad science, which is just bogus. The expense of replacing batteries in electric cars is far and away less expensive than the maintenance required on standard petroleum based vehicles. In fact, it's about one-third the expense ---> <click here, ya njub>
Which is yet one more example that you don't understand how economics works, nor in particular how global economies work. Developments of this nature fall into infrastructure investment, which increases the value of a nation (sort of like adding a room to a house increases its resale value). Spending money when in debt may not sound like a good idea, but if you spend it on infrastructure, on investing, that's just about the only way you're going to get OUT OF debt. Sheesh... silly man.
Indeed, and that's exactly what I've been arguing. But instead, you ran with the, "it won't work, it's too expensive!" argument, without even considering cost analysis.
At least it's nice to see you're willing to backpedal. I'll take that as a hopeful sign.
If you're not in the U.S., then you can't see how it won't work. If you are in the U.S., then I can't see how you think it will work. This nation is built different, built on a very large plot of land that was barely colonized just 100 years ago, as opposed to Europe, where just about every inch of it has been crapped on at one point or another (a figure of speech to annoy those Europeans who can't stand American vulgarities).
In the East Coast, mass transit has a better chance of sitting well with the populace, but definitely not in the Mid or West Coast, where things are spread out (as I earlier argued). Indeed, in all of the U.S., the culture of driving your own vehicle is not merely a necessity, it's a status symbol and a character of this nation's identity. It would require far more than a mere crowbar to unhinge this notion and replace it with efficient mass-transit systems (tried and failed many times, btw).
DeletedUser30834
Well, I can see this thread is already dominated by the "I'm always right despite the views, opinions, facts, or anything else relevant or not" clan. But this time it is ok as I'm not going to bother with the argument on debt. Debt can be good and bad depending on what it is used for and it can expand or depress an economy in the same way. There is no one absolute on this subject and arguing it without the specific conditions is as silly as arguing what you saw 20 minutes ago when no one was around you because you saw something different then someone in a similar location 10 minutes ago..
Instead, I'm going to ask how this is practical in any sense. The transfer of energy from one coil to the other is efficient but it says nothing about the process overall in and of itself. It would appear to me that somehow, it would need to be turned on and off so you are not in essence running a giant motor on a stretch of highway that isn't being used. Somehow you will need to increase the voltage so when 10 cars are on the highway the energy isn't dissipated to unusable states or over worked and heated up too much. It would be worthless if this thing isn't good during rush hour traffic yet very wasteful to over power it when not needed. We already have issues with ghost power drains when your computer, monitor, tv, DVD player, and so on is turned off, even most cell phone chargers when left plugged into the wall and not charging will drain energy when not in use.
So even if it were to be developed and implemented, I'm skeptical that it would be efficient enough to be practical to implement it on the energy efficiency when not in use alone. Can someone explain to me how a system like this would get around the inefficiencies of constantly powering the coils or the drag placed on the vehicle by the coil's magnetic field? I can see it's use in a parking stall or something where it is triggers when someone parks in the space or manually turned on or something. But there are highways and roadways (in the US at least) that get less then one tenth the traffic outside rush hour unless some major event is happening somewhere along it's line.
oh yea, one more thing. how is the bent iron coils going to effect the roadway or the efficiencies of the transfer when there will be differences in expansion rates of the road surface and the coil- or the coil in the car verses the coil shielded from the heat in the roadway. If anything, this is far off into the future.
Instead, I'm going to ask how this is practical in any sense. The transfer of energy from one coil to the other is efficient but it says nothing about the process overall in and of itself. It would appear to me that somehow, it would need to be turned on and off so you are not in essence running a giant motor on a stretch of highway that isn't being used. Somehow you will need to increase the voltage so when 10 cars are on the highway the energy isn't dissipated to unusable states or over worked and heated up too much. It would be worthless if this thing isn't good during rush hour traffic yet very wasteful to over power it when not needed. We already have issues with ghost power drains when your computer, monitor, tv, DVD player, and so on is turned off, even most cell phone chargers when left plugged into the wall and not charging will drain energy when not in use.
So even if it were to be developed and implemented, I'm skeptical that it would be efficient enough to be practical to implement it on the energy efficiency when not in use alone. Can someone explain to me how a system like this would get around the inefficiencies of constantly powering the coils or the drag placed on the vehicle by the coil's magnetic field? I can see it's use in a parking stall or something where it is triggers when someone parks in the space or manually turned on or something. But there are highways and roadways (in the US at least) that get less then one tenth the traffic outside rush hour unless some major event is happening somewhere along it's line.
oh yea, one more thing. how is the bent iron coils going to effect the roadway or the efficiencies of the transfer when there will be differences in expansion rates of the road surface and the coil- or the coil in the car verses the coil shielded from the heat in the roadway. If anything, this is far off into the future.
DeletedUser563
Although electric cars is a neat concept. They just cant compare to my gas guzzler. Not that my car is a gas guzzler its cousin put up a new record for the most kilometers driven on a single tank of gas 1900km on 70 litres in Africa I think(not certain world) Im referring the Volkswagen Blue Motion Golf. For example I drove 270 kilometers this morning and i can probably go another 400 on my purchase. Come on ranges of 100km or miles dont cut it for people that drive a lot for my work.
Also the problem I see with your original posted link is 1. It will cost millions
2. Whats wrong with gas:stop driving like a maniac everywhere you go or buying cars that use massive amounts of petrol.
3. It looks good on paper(????kinda im not certain about sitting on giant magnet for my entire journey. Or sitting on a life current?
4. Also I dont see it happening. What about cost. Fine it seems possible. But maintaining a current 24/7 seems massively counterproductive.
5. recharging technology must improve. Its a given as all other technologies has improved. So in a few years/decades you may recharge your car with a massive burst \||/(tm jakkals) kinda like lightning car - kachionk - broom broom.
6. Energy consumed vs energy used. They say that on average if you take say a maize field. It takes more energy to cultivate that maize field than it actually produces(book on hydroponics). Likewise how will this technology be justified. I wouldnt be surprised if diesel generators fueled these so called energy efficient highways.
In summary this idea wont work.
Also the problem I see with your original posted link is 1. It will cost millions
2. Whats wrong with gas:stop driving like a maniac everywhere you go or buying cars that use massive amounts of petrol.
3. It looks good on paper(????kinda im not certain about sitting on giant magnet for my entire journey. Or sitting on a life current?
4. Also I dont see it happening. What about cost. Fine it seems possible. But maintaining a current 24/7 seems massively counterproductive.
5. recharging technology must improve. Its a given as all other technologies has improved. So in a few years/decades you may recharge your car with a massive burst \||/(tm jakkals) kinda like lightning car - kachionk - broom broom.
6. Energy consumed vs energy used. They say that on average if you take say a maize field. It takes more energy to cultivate that maize field than it actually produces(book on hydroponics). Likewise how will this technology be justified. I wouldnt be surprised if diesel generators fueled these so called energy efficient highways.
In summary this idea wont work.
DeletedUser
It is not yet determined how much it will cost, nor if it will be a cheaper direction than maintaining a dependency on petroleum vehicles, particularly with depleting reserves.
Seriously? You don't know?
Here, get a little reading in ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion
It has already been indicated that so far the studies show it to be safe. Before something like this goes into effect, they'll need to perform additional tests, but seriously --- you worried about the energy passing between your remote control and your television?
While not the same thing, it is a similar principle.
You see those nice little electrical outlets on your wall? You think you're wasting energy when they're sitting there with nothing plugged in? Nope...
Not likely Jakkals. Please research this issue. It would require an entirely different kind of battery, which presently does not exist (nor is it likely for such to exist, precisely because of the way batteries work).
I indicated one possibility, but there are many others, all of which are being researched extensively at this time. I can't believe you're posing diesel generators. How far behind the times are you anyway?
Thank you for educated, informed, so thoroughly insightful input professor. *smirk*
Why don't you wait for the experts to determine if it will be cost effective or not. Eventually, once all the details are worked out, a cost analysis will be performed and the viability of this particular idea can have concrete numbers, rather than ignorant speculations.
DeletedUser16008
id rather not get into economics here if you don't mind scamp, there are currently only 2 camps Keynesian or Austrian.
Keynesian school – All recessions are bad and must be suppressed by government actions. This protects established businesses and jobs. The methods are elaborate and costly, but a benefit to the public overall. Ok but only works as long as you have production and growth with too much debt you create a trap which you may never get out of... ie the western economies for the past 50 years atm
Austrian school – When markets stray too far from reality they must be purged by adversity. This clears unneeded or failing enterprises so capital is not allocated wastefully, and new businesses can emerge. Periodic small or large recessions are the price of a healthy economy. Considered more cautious but far more sustainable, natural free market economics. What the western economies should have allowed to happen and changed to about 20 years but havn't.
Both schools are sensible at various times when used as a balancer or seesaw by economies but as the first one Keynesian allows greed to run rampant naturally it will be more popular with the "I want it now" brigade and has been for 50 years or more in the west. It has been allowed to get too far out of balance and currently being exasperated and increased by the worldwide policies of dumping ever increasing amounts of credit into the world economies. This will eventually 100% destroy all fiat currencies and if nations don't act also their national economies as we know it and also most peoples lives along with it.
There are few economies capable of spending such sums as the OP link suggests and certainly not the US. China has spent a massive amount on its infrastructure and will soon have a massive problem. They have ghost cities already freshly built and Burma 10 lane motorways with nothing on them built by China. Don't look to China for the coming answer as they will be having massive problems of their own in the next few years and probably revolution to boot.
Currently the only sensible alternative to petroleum driven transport going forward that is economical, fast recharging, clean, and most of all neutral polluting and sustainable is hydrogen powered... as scamp already posted http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/.
Electricity = dependence on oil and currently in the way its made is a limited dead end technology. To suggest investing huge sums in a dead end is madness we must stop looking at the now and start looking at the long term. Electric powered as most in the various related industries have known since decades before is a limited and still dependent on oil... we have had electric powered vehicles in the UK since 1947 ... they are called milk floats lol http://www.motoringpicturelibrary.com/preview_image.asp?fleID=6371
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser563
So you cant determine for yourself that creating a mega powerstation to take you to work is wasteful. Well now imagine one for every highway in the US. But the U.S. people is extremely wasteful anyway. I dont care how batteries work if you can design a entire supercharging highway : take that idiots and send them to a battery factory for me so that they can come up with a new battery. Also they design this very brilliant idea and they cant tell the cost in power of it. Thats a bit rich. I dont have to do any research to say that pig is never gonna fly even if I life to be 230 . Anyway it will always take the same energy as the 8 hour for about 1 and half hours of driving. Right? So still cant drive more than 2 hours before you ran out of energy. As your rate of energy consumption is more than the rate of total recharge.
So until you can fix this equation : my car consumed 200 KW of energy(hope that is right) in an hour / my car recharged 30KW eek eek eek. And the only way you can fix this is by improving recharging energy. So maestro HS by virtue of circle logic we are back at the same problem with electric cars. Also you just so conveniently left the whole alternative forms of energy right out of the equation with your oil is depleting statement. In short Biogas. Also diesel generators is still used by a lot of countries or what do you think an oil country will use for energy : coal?
So until you can fix this equation : my car consumed 200 KW of energy(hope that is right) in an hour / my car recharged 30KW eek eek eek. And the only way you can fix this is by improving recharging energy. So maestro HS by virtue of circle logic we are back at the same problem with electric cars. Also you just so conveniently left the whole alternative forms of energy right out of the equation with your oil is depleting statement. In short Biogas. Also diesel generators is still used by a lot of countries or what do you think an oil country will use for energy : coal?
DeletedUser25606
Vic ,i wasnt intending to get anywhere close to economics here , all i was pointing to was in times of GFC infrastructure often gets built ,stimulis etc ,meh ,you know why.
I actually first saw the Honda on Top Gear , James may drove one in californa (hence the refernce to hydrogen fuel stations there (apparntly in europe too ) he totted it as the car of the future.
There's a few intresting arguments on it though: it takes a lot of energy for electrolysis to split the oxygen from the hydrogen ,then some more to compress it ,(yes the article on the honda website points to solar panels as that answer ,but if there was a mass demand ...?) very intrestingly though , hydrogen can also come from organic's ,and there's talk of genetic modification to increase yield but at what scale for that to be viable . (although personaly i like that avenue , it's a question of technology bieng able to meet demand )
Another point of intrest is ,say for arguments sake , a whole city adopted hydrogen cars ,a big city , with the emisons bieng water vapour would that in fact leads to mirco climates over those cities .NYC for example , 3-4 million cars ? that would have to account for some serious water vapour localized , you don't have to be a weather expert to consider that by any stretch.
Also i'd point to Honda and toyota arn't and won't develop plug-ins , these are two major car compaines that simply don't see a future in electric cars , i find that of intrest , you'd have to assume as major players in the automobile industry that they would've exhausted both arguments in context of business planning.
Also i think it'd be remiss to point that this goes much further than cars ..
Companies such as Boeing, Lange Aviation, and the German Aerospace Center pursue hydrogen as fuel for manned and unmanned airplanes. In February 2008 Boeing tested a manned flight of a small aircraft powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. Unmanned hydrogen planes have also been tested.[24] For large passenger airplanes however, The Times reported that "Boeing said that hydrogen fuel cells were unlikely to power the engines of large passenger jet airplanes but could be used as backup or auxiliary power units onboard."[25]
In July 2010 Boeing unveiled its hydrogen powered Phantom Eye UAV, powered by two Ford internal combustion engines that have been converted to run on hydrogen.[26]
In Europe, the Reaction Engines A2 has been proposed to use the thermodynamic properties of liquid hydrogen to achieve very high speed, long distance (antipodal) flight by burning it in a precooled jet engine.
Of even more relevance in 2009 italy opened a hydrogen power plant ...
This hydrogen power plant is an off shoot of the Environment and Innovation Project known as Hydrogen Park. 7.4 billion euros will be assigned for the whole project by 2012. Another 40 million euro plant will be established on the line of Enel’s existing coal-fired power station in Fusina. It will have an investment of 4 million euros from the local Veneto region. According to Enel this power plant will save the emission of more than 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. This power plant has a capacity of 12 megawatt and burns hydrogen gas in a turbine developed in partnership with General Electric.
We know that the only byproducts of the hydrogen fuel burning process are hot air and water vapor. These two are used to produce steam. This steam can be utilized by a coal-fired plant to produce another potential four megawatts of energy.
In fairness to context ,it would have to be said that at this point hydrogen cars ,the cells and the processing are just far too expensive to be a real far reaching viable alternative , although that's common place for any new technology , and of course where invention leads to demand ,industry leads to supply (early hand made cars where the status quo in the early days of the automobile pricing them well out of most people reach until a little company in detroit started using production lines and dropped the retail )
To me any proposal in aspects of green options is a good thing ,its gets people talking about it , it's gets it in the public eye .In any model of causes of global warming /emisons the car is always a major factor , and as Hellstromm pointed to logistically in view of America it will always be the number one means of transport (and that's before you even get to frieght) ,if its hydrogen or wireless or really in any form that will be able to cost effective and mass produced it'll always be a step up from where we are now.
I actually first saw the Honda on Top Gear , James may drove one in californa (hence the refernce to hydrogen fuel stations there (apparntly in europe too ) he totted it as the car of the future.
There's a few intresting arguments on it though: it takes a lot of energy for electrolysis to split the oxygen from the hydrogen ,then some more to compress it ,(yes the article on the honda website points to solar panels as that answer ,but if there was a mass demand ...?) very intrestingly though , hydrogen can also come from organic's ,and there's talk of genetic modification to increase yield but at what scale for that to be viable . (although personaly i like that avenue , it's a question of technology bieng able to meet demand )
Another point of intrest is ,say for arguments sake , a whole city adopted hydrogen cars ,a big city , with the emisons bieng water vapour would that in fact leads to mirco climates over those cities .NYC for example , 3-4 million cars ? that would have to account for some serious water vapour localized , you don't have to be a weather expert to consider that by any stretch.
Also i'd point to Honda and toyota arn't and won't develop plug-ins , these are two major car compaines that simply don't see a future in electric cars , i find that of intrest , you'd have to assume as major players in the automobile industry that they would've exhausted both arguments in context of business planning.
Also i think it'd be remiss to point that this goes much further than cars ..
Companies such as Boeing, Lange Aviation, and the German Aerospace Center pursue hydrogen as fuel for manned and unmanned airplanes. In February 2008 Boeing tested a manned flight of a small aircraft powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. Unmanned hydrogen planes have also been tested.[24] For large passenger airplanes however, The Times reported that "Boeing said that hydrogen fuel cells were unlikely to power the engines of large passenger jet airplanes but could be used as backup or auxiliary power units onboard."[25]
In July 2010 Boeing unveiled its hydrogen powered Phantom Eye UAV, powered by two Ford internal combustion engines that have been converted to run on hydrogen.[26]
In Europe, the Reaction Engines A2 has been proposed to use the thermodynamic properties of liquid hydrogen to achieve very high speed, long distance (antipodal) flight by burning it in a precooled jet engine.
Of even more relevance in 2009 italy opened a hydrogen power plant ...
This hydrogen power plant is an off shoot of the Environment and Innovation Project known as Hydrogen Park. 7.4 billion euros will be assigned for the whole project by 2012. Another 40 million euro plant will be established on the line of Enel’s existing coal-fired power station in Fusina. It will have an investment of 4 million euros from the local Veneto region. According to Enel this power plant will save the emission of more than 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. This power plant has a capacity of 12 megawatt and burns hydrogen gas in a turbine developed in partnership with General Electric.
We know that the only byproducts of the hydrogen fuel burning process are hot air and water vapor. These two are used to produce steam. This steam can be utilized by a coal-fired plant to produce another potential four megawatts of energy.
In fairness to context ,it would have to be said that at this point hydrogen cars ,the cells and the processing are just far too expensive to be a real far reaching viable alternative , although that's common place for any new technology , and of course where invention leads to demand ,industry leads to supply (early hand made cars where the status quo in the early days of the automobile pricing them well out of most people reach until a little company in detroit started using production lines and dropped the retail )
To me any proposal in aspects of green options is a good thing ,its gets people talking about it , it's gets it in the public eye .In any model of causes of global warming /emisons the car is always a major factor , and as Hellstromm pointed to logistically in view of America it will always be the number one means of transport (and that's before you even get to frieght) ,if its hydrogen or wireless or really in any form that will be able to cost effective and mass produced it'll always be a step up from where we are now.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Meh, there are more than that. In fact, the Keynesian school has evolved into two new forms. Also, your write-ups are not entirely accurate. Anyway... not the topic, so will walk away and focus on the topic.
Meh, your above assertion is incomplete. We used other energy sources and convert them into electricity, precisely because electricity is a flexible form of energy that we have become adept at manipulating (computers anyone, or would you like to make a hydrogen computer?).
Indeed Jakkals, because ignorance is so informative.
Did you even bother to read the initial article?
The vast majority of diesel engines run on "petroleum" diesel, silly man. Not even sure why I'm bothering with this... it's amazing the silly crap you ramble on about.
Agreed Scampy, discovery and development go hand in hand, yet oftentimes people rage against discoveries claiming they aren't good enough, completely ignoring the development stage. Learning new avenues is exactly what the world needs to focus on right now, finding new ways of approaching our energy needs.
I'm actually surprised by all the hostility to a new discovery, which that article specifically addresses. The means and manner to put it into effect is something that will surely require more research, and ultimately it will need to be developed into something that is cost-effective. But, it is a fascinating discovery (or, more aptly, a rediscovery) and something that we should be celebrating instead of condemning. It does have potential applicability, even if on a limited framework.
DeletedUser563
After reading through the article again. And you must keep in mind most of these debates involve science we are not all interested in science per se but ok..
ok so this doesnt involve recharging then. Your car is powered straight from the grid. ok still they have tested it stationary only i would like to see them power a car going at 100 miles per hour. But reading downwards to the comments I came upon this little gem:
That 10 kW per car is actually closer to 20 kW in real electric cars with lights, heaters, power steering, A/C, weather, wind... etc.
But, take 10 kW per car, have a car every 100 yards for 10 miles on both sides of a four-lane highway. How much power do you need? That's about 700 cars, which makes 7 megawatts.
Therefore the magnitude of the problem is roughly a megawatt a mile to power all the cars. You'd need one big 300 ft tall wind turbine per mile of road to power it (at least sometimes).
A single nuclear powerplant could operate 500-600 miles of highway. Still, there are many thousands of miles of road, and many many cars. There are more than 100 million cars in the whole country, and trying to run even 10% of that directly off of the grid would mean that you need 100,000,000,000 Watts of power, or roughly all the nuclear powerplants in operation in the US.
This is the reason why electric cars have to be charged slowly at night.
Last edited by a moderator: