Electric cars are not the future, adapting and improving conventional combustion engines are!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Mr Sarkozy’s ... government commissioned months ago one of France’s leading energy experts – Jean Syrota, the former French energy industry regulator – to draw up a report to analyse all the options for building cleaner and more efficient mass-market cars by 2030.

...

The 129-page report ... concludes that there is not much future in the much vaunted developed of all electric-powered cars. Instead, it suggests that the traditional combustion engine powered by petrol, diesel, ethanol or new biofuels still offers the most realistic prospect of developing cleaner vehicles. Carbon emissions and fuel consumption could be cut by 30-40 per cent simply by improving the performance and efficiency of traditional engines and limiting the top speed to about 170km/hr. Even that is well above the average top speed restriction in Europe, with the notable exception of Germany. New so-called “stop and start” mechanisms can produce further 10 per cent reductions that can rise to 25-30 per cent in cities. Enhancements in car electronics as well as the development of more energy efficient tyres, such as Michelin’s new "energy saver" technology, are also expected to help reduce consumption and pollution.

Overall, the Syrota report says that adapting and improving conventional engines could enhance their efficiency by an average of 50 per cent. It also argues that new-generation hybrid cars combining conventional engines with electric propulsion could provide an interesting future alternative.

By combining electric batteries with conventional fuel-driven engines, cars could run on clean electricity for short urban trips while switching over to fuel on motorways. This would resolve one of the biggest problems facing all electric cars – the need to install costly battery recharging infrastructures. The report warns that the overall cost of an all-electric car remains unviable at around double that of a conventional vehicle. Battery technology is still unsatisfactory, severely limiting performance both in terms of range and speed. The electricity supply for these batteries would continue to come from mostly fossil sources.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/37f1f624-c7b0-11...0077b07658.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Makes sense to me.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Makes sense to me.

####### happened to you hippie?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Makes sense to me.

####### happened to you hippie?

LOL...I never said that electric cars were the answer. They are one answer.

[NickD 203]

Makes sense to me.

####### happened to you hippie?

LOL...I never said that electric cars were the answer. They are one answer.

If somebody could develop an inexpensive reliable battery for the Chevy Volt, may get GM out of trouble.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Makes sense to me.

####### happened to you hippie?

LOL...I never said that electric cars were the answer. They are one answer.

If somebody could develop an inexpensive reliable battery for the Chevy Volt, may get GM out of trouble.

Bingo! There is a solution to the battery problem. We just have to find it.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Makes sense to me.

####### happened to you hippie?

LOL...I never said that electric cars were the answer. They are one answer.

exactly

[NickD 203]

Makes sense to me.

####### happened to you hippie?

LOL...I never said that electric cars were the answer. They are one answer.

exactly

Since Ford and Edison spent for ten million bucks and ten years at the turn of the last century trying to develop a better battery, a battery engineering book, about the size of a New York telephone directory has been written on research over the last hundred years, examining the potential for all of the 117 different elements in the periodic table. The more chemically active elements produce the greatest energy to weight ratio, but are equally unstable, ever see a battery explode or suffer a complete meltdown? Not much worse than setting a match to a tankful of gasoline.

Lots of talk about electricity and hydrogen, these are not sources of energy, but rather sources of energy media, requiring conversion from one source of energy to another. And whenever such a conversion takes place, due to efficiencies of less than 100%, energy is lost in the conversion process, plus it adds to the complexity of the system that translates into operating and purchasing costs. Simplicity is always the correct answer.

The internal combustion engine has always suffered from the Carnot cycle, theoretical maximum efficiency is 50%, but to get their, compression ratios would have to be almost infinite, although in some four story high ship diesel engines operating at a mere 200 rpm with extremely long stroke pistons, this value has been exceeded. Can't fit something like that in a land vehicle. But the system is stuck on using this engine, short stroke, combustion temperature problems, generation of NOx's, use of extremely high octane fuels, and with about 85% of the energy going out the tail pipe. Use of the catalytic converter is a cheap means to clean up the mess, is not cheap with many exhaust systems costing over a thousand bucks or more and stupidly put underneath the vehicle well it is subject to road hazards. And it's after the fact. Using one O2 sensor to monitor an entire engine is likewise stupid, if one cylinder screws up run rich or lean, this sensor screws up the other engine, but hey, have to make this consumer product dirt cheap. But you don't see that on the sticker price.

The one once all cast iron engine is now replaced by plastic and aluminum, why? Because it's cheaper, plastic melts at 700*F, aluminum at 1,100*F, and cast iron closer to 3,000*F. Where cast iron requires sand mode, aluminum and plastic can use steel modes, more accurate castings, less machine work, and a lot less energy in the production, but heaven help you if your thermostat doesn't open, your engine will melt down.

In 1965 could purchase a washer and a dryer for 700 bucks and a new vehicle for around 3,000 bucks, with improved robotic assembly can still purchase a washer and a dryer for 700 bucks today with enormous inflation, but try 30,000 bucks for a vehicle, but gone is the cast iron, the steel frame, heavier drivetrain, vehicles should be just as cheap today as buying a washer and a dryer, but cost ten times as much.

Why? For one thing, liability, the DOT, DOE, CAFE, and EPA, it's a nightmare working as an engineer. For one thing, these agencies have politically appointed heads that don't know chit, and none of the engineers with full authority could never hack it in the industrial world where a profit has to be made to stay alive, get their big fat government paychecks, are arrogrant, and the least bit knowledgable. So work for the government instead of industry, ha, they don't like hiring smart guys. But you have to put up with these idiots and spend more time trying to please these a$$holes than trying to do a good job. Marketing is another factor, make parts dirt cheap so the executives can play at the country club. Just on perspective on why our vehicle industry is failing.

The eutecic piston was an Amercian design, adding silicon to greatly extend the live of a piston, cost about 20 cents extra, Japs studied our technology, still feel we are a hell of a lot smarter than they, but at least their marketing would let them spend that extra 20 cents, can't say that about our own.

Are there better engine designs? Yes, the history books are loaded with them, many before their time where we have the materials and technology to use them today. For example, a small insulated combustion chamber fed with compressed natural gas heating a refrigerant to a mere 220*F that can develope a pressure of over 400 psi, that applied to a mere 4" diameter piston can output more than 5000 pounds of force to directly drive an axle eliminating the need for a transmission. Steam engine techniques can be used for reverse. Since high combustion temperatures are no longer required, NOx's would not be a problem with no need for an exhaust system. Controls would be very simple compared to what we have today, and the expanding refrigerant can be used to air condition the vehicle, as well as heat it.

No, rather spend billions on playing with batteries and fuel cells, can't help the oil companies have a strong influence on what we drive as well as controlling the EPA.

[SpiritAlight 1]

Let's get back to riding horses for transport.

And being I love animals and would not want them to be mistreated in any way:

of course this would mean everybody would have to get lighter.

Hahahaha!

Seriously: more public transit, high speed efficient trains, incentives to carpool if you live in an area that just does not have buses/etc., some electric vehicles, lots of electric scooters, and some low emission fuel burning cars as a last resort. Enough with the land battleships! grrrrrr....

And even more seriously:

Live close to where you work.

Quality of life would improve.

Edited December 13, 2008 by SpiritAlight

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Makes sense to me.

####### happened to you hippie?

LOL...I never said that electric cars were the answer. They are one answer.

If somebody could develop an inexpensive reliable battery for the Chevy Volt, may get GM out of trouble.

Bingo! There is a solution to the battery problem. We just have to find it.

Focus on the solution, not the problem.