----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:11 PM Subject: RE: Who Killed the Electric Car
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of jon louis mann >> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:24 PM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Who Killed the Electric Car >> >> >> I saw the film Dan, at the Santa Monica Library and went away with >> the >> same feelings of frustration. I live in California and wasn't even >> aware these prototypes were out there. At the talk afterward some >> of >> the problems with fuel cells and alternative technology were >> discussed. >> I learned that Switch-grass, Sugar Cane, and even Hemp, are much >> more >> efficient than Corn, but our farmers get government subsidies for >> growing Corn. > > With all due respect, listening to claims by advocacy groups is not > the same > as learning. I know as a fact, from having a relative that has > farmed both > corn and soybeans in the same year, that the government subsidies > are and > have not been just for one crop. For example, the latest form of > the > subsidies that he has received have been in the form of holding back > areas > of his farm that have the highest risk of erosion from planting. > This has > accelerated the increase in topsoil on his farm. > > Second, if we look at sugar cane, we see that it is only grown in > the > warmest wettest parts of the US (Hawaii, Florida and Louisiana are > listed, > but I think there is still some sugar cane in SE Texas). The yields > in Fl. > and La are significantly lower (about 2x per year) because these > fields see > occasional light frosts. Obviously, this is not a crop for the corn > belt. > We cannot, like Brazil, simply cut down more rain forest to plant > sugar > cane. > > Switchgrass, on paper, is better, but there it requires significant > amounts > of energy to turn it into biofuel. There are conflicting numbers on > this, > but they do tend to indicate that producing ethanol with switchgrass > is more > energy intensive than it is for corn. > > In 10 years, given the progress in bioengineering, we may be seeing > different economics....or we may not. I'm for funding this type of > bioengineering, but we won't know the results until they are here. > > >> What really gets me is that China is starting to produce cars for >> their >> burgeoning market when they should be exploring alternatives to the >> internal combustion engine that they could export to western >> countries! > > Why would we by more expensive cars in the future when we haven't to > date? > China's reliance on coal fired plants, and dirty ones at that, > indicate that > the economics of fossil fuel usage vs. other cleaner technologies. > They are > at the stage in economic development that we were, say, 70 years ago > or > so...when pollution was considered the smell of money. > In America we used to speak in terms of the "family car", but I believe the term is dated and we now give consideration mainly to our "commuter vehicles". This is in large part due to the steady rise in energy/fuel prices. Most families have 2 cars but they are mostly used for commuting and only secondarily used for family excursions. Therefore, I am proposing that what we will see in the near to long term is 2 vehicle families, but either families will invest in 2 very different vehicles or an industry will arise that makes renting of vehicles for excursions easy and painless. For commuters, the future is electric. We are approaching a cusp where batteries (often coupled with super-capacitors) have energy densities that allow for ICE-like performance at a price that doesn't call for a mortgage. I suspect that after a few years one will see prices similar to what one finds in typical ICE vehicles. Here is an electric car due to hit the streets *This* year: http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php And just for comparison, here is a vehicle I suspect is just vaporware (at least for the next decade): http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=4560 Currently(no pun intended), these vehicles are quite expensive (appx 100K) and do not even make use of the very latest in engineering, but the trends are encouraging and the amount of research being done in directly and indirectly related fields is quite surprising. (I subscribe to several electric industry newsletters and they are awash with battery tech and auto tech news items. My impression is that we are on the verge of major changes in some manufacturing arenas) Scale the tech in these vehicles to a typical commuter sedan and it looks very probable that an electric commuter vehicle that invokes customer satisfaction is within reach. Family excursion vehicles are an entirely different kettle of fish. My impression is that families who are community-active will require some sort of hybrid vehicle that makes use of fossil fuels at least some of the time. But at the same time I think the vehicle will have an ICE engine that is not so picky about the fuel it uses. There are engines being tested now that are similar to gasoline burning engines, but will burn any mixture of gasoline, alcohol, the products of cellulose reactors, or even LPG. (I'm talking about a single engine that will utilize all these fuels and any happenstance mixture of them) I've seen no word on how efficient these engines are, but it is quite obvious that manufacturers find an engine with such capabilities to be very desirable. (I suspect this is because plentiful and reasonably priced fuel means more driving which means higher vehicle turnover due to increased use.) Diesel engines already are flexible when it comes to fuel, but even their capabilities are being expanded with new types of fuels. Ahhhh fuels! There is quite a bit of entrepreneurship going on in that area. Some of you may know that alcohol made from cane has a higher energy density that alcohol made from corn. And gasoline has a higher energy density than both. It's all about sugars with alcohol. But there is a design for a reactor being promoted that makes a fuel from cellulose that has an energy density similar to gasoline. (I'll look for a link for this, this is quite interesting. but here is a bit on the fuel itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%2C5-Dimethylfuran ) There are a lot of reasons to be optimistic. So many people are working on solutions that even if most fail, we will reap benefits from the minority of successes. That is not to say that the benefits will necessarily apply to transportation, but benefits are benefits nonetheless. xponent Power Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
