Tesla...

What other way is there to store energy for an electric car though?

 

A compressed hydrogen tank and a fuel cell. (This is the real future of electric cars, btw.)

 

Or, a battery, ultra-capacitor, or flywheel system in combination with an ultra-efficient diesel range extender.

D.Wiggs, you in the auto customizing business? When you say about increase the range, does this mean decreasing how powerful the motor is?

Yes. With battery systems you will always have the choice of range or performance. One comes at the cost of the other.

Yes. With battery systems you will always have the choice of range or performance. One comes at the cost of the other.

In electric motors, the RPMs and amperage are limited for safety reasons. If you are producing more power I assume you are increasing one or the other. Have you or anyone else actually tuned one to produce more power and dynoed the results?

A compressed hydrogen tank and a fuel cell. (This is the real future of electric cars, btw.)

 

Or, a battery, ultra-capacitor, or flywheel system in combination with an ultra-efficient diesel range extender.

 

I see;I will have to do more research on the issue to fully understand those. However, is the car truly electric if it uses a diesel or hydrogen?

A compressed hydrogen tank and a fuel cell. (This is the real future of electric cars, btw.)

 

Or, a battery, ultra-capacitor, or flywheel system in combination with an ultra-efficient diesel range extender.

 

I see;I will have to do more research on the issue to fully understand those. However, is the car truly electric if it uses a diesel or hydrogen?

 

EDIT: I should rephrase that: does the car having to use hydrogen or diesel make it truly pollution free, as that is one of the main points of electric cars.

I see;I will have to do more research on the issue to fully understand those. However, is the car truly electric if it uses a diesel or hydrogen?

 

EDIT: I should rephrase that: does the car having to use hydrogen or diesel make it truly pollution free, as that is one of the main points of electric cars.

 

On what planet is electricity 100% pollution free? Even solar panels require production.

 

BTW I see a diesel/electric being the real end game. You get a specific engine operating in a very specific range and the efficiency goes through the roof. Even a turbine would be possible. Do what trains have been doing for decades.

On what planet is electricity 100% pollution free? Even solar panels require production.

 

BTW I see a diesel/electric being the real end game. You get a specific engine operating in a very specific range and the efficiency goes through the roof. Even a turbine would be possible. Do what trains have been doing for decades.

 

Well maybe not 100% pollution-free, but a much greater reduction in the pollution released (such as CO2 emissions). If electric cars ultimately put out the same amount of CO2 as an IC engine, just through a different channel, then what would be their point?

 

Regarding gas-electric and diesel-electrics, do they not build automobiles like that right now due to the price? Would it just be too costly right now to have a gasoline or diesel engine that powers an electric generator which then powers an electric motor?

BTW I see a diesel/electric being the real end game. You get a specific engine operating in a very specific range and the efficiency goes through the roof. Even a turbine would be possible. Do what trains have been doing for decades.

 

Agreed. And I think Audi/Lamborghini are already on the serious part of this. Didn't the Audi R18 TDI already had much racing success? And years ago, Lambo owners were given a survey and one of the questions was how we would feel about the Lamborghini brand if it has a turbo diesel or hybrid diesel engine.

For the record, I also believe electric cars are the future, but I believe the current electric car "revolution" is as much good marketing and a desirable product from Tesla, than it is an actual revolution. Right now it is very cool to be green, and what better way to show your hipness than to drive an electric car. Not saying electric cars are a fad, but the perceived revolution is sort of a fad.

I think that's a very wrong assessment about Tesla owners, most do not buy the car because it's electric with zero emission. The top reasons are performance, cost of ownership, design, comfort and (for some countries) price. The fact that's it's electric and zero emission is way down the list of reasons to buy for most.

 

As far as "revolution" goes, this is certainly the first ever electric car that for a majority of people can replace an ICE car. I drive almost 20.000 miles a year, and have had zero issues with charging and range. I charge every night, and are ready to go 250 miles the next day. That's enough for most people.

waiting on the SUV model for wife. Just seems like its taking FOREVER!!

Well maybe not 100% pollution-free, but a much greater reduction in the pollution released (such as CO2 emissions). If electric cars ultimately put out the same amount of CO2 as an IC engine, just through a different channel, then what would be their point?

 

Regarding gas-electric and diesel-electrics, do they not build automobiles like that right now due to the price? Would it just be too costly right now to have a gasoline or diesel engine that powers an electric generator which then powers an electric motor?

 

But you not only have to look at the pollution of production, but also to dispose of after the fact. People like to ignore these things and have no consideration for the full circle.

 

If we were all really concerned with pollution we would be using nothing but nuke power plants.

 

I'm not exactly sure why they aren't built yet, or specifically why semi-trucks aren't built this way. My gut feeling is it's battery/capacitor related at this point. If they could get something like the VW direct injection 2L diesel coupled to a generator, ditch all the driveline nonsense for a direct drive electric, I bet the MPG would go through the roof. If they can find a way to quiet down a turbine that would be even better. Get them in the right rpm range and they are easily twice as efficient (hp per btu of fuel burned) as even a really well tuned diesel.

 

To me it makes a lot more sense than having in essence two drivetrains as many of the current hybrids are.

But you not only have to look at the pollution of production, but also to dispose of after the fact. People like to ignore these things and have no consideration for the full circle.

Yeah you know, unlike normal cars that vanish into thin air when they are scrapped... Oh wait.

 

 

If we were all really concerned with pollution we would be using nothing but nuke power plants.

Not sure if sarcastic or not... You do know we have NO IDEA what to do with nuclear waste?

But you not only have to look at the pollution of production, but also to dispose of after the fact. People like to ignore these things and have no consideration for the full circle.

 

If we were all really concerned with pollution we would be using nothing but nuke power plants.

 

I'm not exactly sure why they aren't built yet, or specifically why semi-trucks aren't built this way. My gut feeling is it's battery/capacitor related at this point. If they could get something like the VW direct injection 2L diesel coupled to a generator, ditch all the driveline nonsense for a direct drive electric, I bet the MPG would go through the roof. If they can find a way to quiet down a turbine that would be even better. Get them in the right rpm range and they are easily twice as efficient (hp per btu of fuel burned) as even a really well tuned diesel.

 

To me it makes a lot more sense than having in essence two drivetrains as many of the current hybrids are.

 

 

Agree with a lot of what you are saying, although your comment about the thermal efficiency of a gas turbine (running at constant rpm) being more efficient than a diesel is grossly incorrect. Gas turbines are an area on which I have tremendous expertise. The most efficient simple-cycle gas turbines are massive aero-derived engines like the GE LM6000, which have a peak thermal efficiency of around 42%, or a brake specific fuel consumption of around .32 lb/shp/hr. When you scale gas turbines down to small sizes that can fit in automobiles, their thermal efficiency decreases significantly for reasons that would make this post longer and more boring than it already is.

 

Automotive Diesel engines can produce thermal efficiency in the high 40% range and bsfc of around .27 lb/bhp/hr.

But you not only have to look at the pollution of production, but also to dispose of after the fact. People like to ignore these things and have no consideration for the full circle.

 

If we were all really concerned with pollution we would be using nothing but nuke power plants.

 

I'm not exactly sure why they aren't built yet, or specifically why semi-trucks aren't built this way. My gut feeling is it's battery/capacitor related at this point. If they could get something like the VW direct injection 2L diesel coupled to a generator, ditch all the driveline nonsense for a direct drive electric, I bet the MPG would go through the roof. If they can find a way to quiet down a turbine that would be even better. Get them in the right rpm range and they are easily twice as efficient (hp per btu of fuel burned) as even a really well tuned diesel.

 

To me it makes a lot more sense than having in essence two drivetrains as many of the current hybrids are.

 

Only problem with a turbine I see is that they take a while to start up. If you need to just hop in the vehicle and start the car instantly and go, a turbine would be problematic. Another alternative vehicle technology I've read about is steam power. That can run on anything and provides instant torque as well. The major problem with steam is the size of the boiler and that they also take a bit of time to start up.

 

On nuclear power, after the Fukashima incident, I think they aren't as safe as claimed.

I see;I will have to do more research on the issue to fully understand those. However, is the car truly electric if it uses a diesel or hydrogen?

 

A car is truly electric if it uses a fuel cell. A fuel cell converts hydrogen and oxygen into electricity and water and some heat. Hydrogen is not burned in the process; there is no combustion involved.

 

Also, while most of the world's hydrogen is produced from natural gas today, hydrogen can be produced through a process called electrolysis that uses just electricity and water. Of course, the electricity has to be produced somehow, and in most cases is produced by burning hydrocarbons, but as we know electricity can be produced via solar, hydropower, wind power, etc., making hydrogen a renewable fuel. And it can be burned in an ICE.

 

 

Not sure if sarcastic or not... You do know we have NO IDEA what to do with nuclear waste?

 

Well the French get a lot of their power from nuclear power. As long as you have a place to store the nuclear waste, it isn't a problem. You can also recycle it (something we don't do here in the U.S. I believe due to a law or treaty or something we signed to prove to the Soviet Union during the Cold War that we weren't using the waste for nuclear weapons or something like that). I was very surprised though that the Fukashima plant's fuel supplies for the backup generators were just knocked out by a flood like that. One would think there'd be multiple sets of backup generators and multiple sets of backup fuel supplies, so if one set gets knocked out, there's another, and so on.

Only problem with a turbine I see is that they take a while to start up. If you need to just hop in the vehicle and start the car instantly and go, a turbine would be problematic. Another alternative vehicle technology I've read about is steam power. That can run on anything and provides instant torque as well. The major problem with steam is the size of the boiler and that they also take a bit of time to start up.

 

On nuclear power, after the Fukashima incident, I think they aren't as safe as claimed.

 

Small turbine engines can start up in about 10 seconds and don't need to warm up.

 

Forget steam, it takes an hour to get your boiler going.

Agree with a lot of what you are saying, although your comment about the thermal efficiency of a gas turbine (running at constant rpm) being more efficient than a diesel is grossly incorrect. Gas turbines are an area on which I have tremendous expertise. The most efficient simple-cycle gas turbines are massive aero-derived engines like the GE LM6000, which have a peak thermal efficiency of around 42%, or a brake specific fuel consumption of around .32 lb/shp/hr. When you scale gas turbines down to small sizes that can fit in automobiles, their thermal efficiency decreases significantly for reasons that would make this post longer and more boring than it already is.

 

Automotive Diesel engines can produce thermal efficiency in the high 40% range and bsfc of around .27 lb/bhp/hr.

 

Are you a mechanical engineer who specializes in gas turbines? That is very cool if so!

Are you a mechanical engineer who specializes in gas turbines? That is very cool if so!

 

No, I do have a background in engineering but I learned everything about gas turbines because it was a hobby and an obsession of mine for over 10 years.

Small turbine engines can start up in about 10 seconds and don't need to warm up.

 

Forget steam, it takes an hour to get your boiler going.

 

Would have to say you are incorrect on the steam engine. Even the steam cars back in the early 20th century only took a few minutes to get the boiler going. Today they could probably get them to start in a matter of seconds with flash boilers. Steam engines actually have a lot of advantages: they are quiet, clean, can use any fuel, don't require gearing as they provide constant pressure, provide instant torque like an electric motor, etc...

No, I do have a background in engineering but I learned everything about gas turbines because it was a hobby and an obsession of mine for over 10 years.

 

Coolbeans, do you mean you built your own gas turbines?

Coolbeans, do you mean you built your own gas turbines?

 

Yes, and I collected military surplus turbine engines, rebuilt them, and put them into boats, cars, go karts, etc.

 

I also have my name on a patent for a diesel powered linear alternator that could be used as a range extender in a hybrid vehicle.

Yes, and I collected military surplus turbine engines, rebuilt them, and put them into boats, cars, go karts, etc.

 

I also have my name on a patent for a diesel powered linear alternator that could be used as a range extender in a hybrid vehicle.

 

I didn't know one could get military-surplus turbine engines. To learn about building them, do you study engineering and technician texts on them?

For the record, I also believe electric cars are the future, but I believe the current electric car "revolution" is as much good marketing and a desirable product from Tesla, than it is an actual revolution. Right now it is very cool to be green, and what better way to show your hipness than to drive an electric car. Not saying electric cars are a fad, but the perceived revolution is sort of a fad.

 

 

it's more than Tesla, Nissan, Ford, Fiat, BMW and Mercedes, etc are all following along...

 

 

 

The problem is, the Tesla is not a practical alternative to the typical gas burning automobile for the masses. They are selling now because there is a niche for people who can afford them and want to be on the cutting edge or want to show their green-ness. But let's face it, if there were an affordable Tesla for the masses, I don't think it would do well because the average person that can only afford one car needs his car to do everything reasonably well. And having to stop for 25-30 minutes to "fill up" simply doesn't work in the real world. Or it it would get old real fast. Which is why Tesla was (or is still) trying to implement quick change battery systems in the car. Again, the battery is the weak link, and Tesla's exploration of this option is sort of proof of that. Also, free electricity at supercharging stations to charge your car is a great feature, but how long will Tesla continue to subsidize electricity for their customers, especially on more affordable models?

 

 

most people commute and most of the driving is not 200 miles per day... just like any other car, there isn't one car fits all...

 

 

Finally, yes, currently power generated at a power plant is done so at greater thermal efficiencies than in a gasoline powered automobile engine, but the gap is not as great as you think and closing. A coal or oil fired power plant typically has a thermal efficiency in the range of 35% or so; I believe it is somewhat higher for natural gas and obviously combined cycle power plants that recycle the waste heat to make steam are closer to 55%. But then you have to factor in the losses that occur in the transmission of that power over long runs of power line, and the efficiency at the outlet is lower. Obviously, renewable sources are a home-run for power generation, but again, I am not critiquing the use of electric cars, but rather the use of batteries to store energy.

 

Modern automotive diesel engines can have a thermal efficiency of 40% or even more, so we aren't talking about huge, if any difference.

 

 

does that 40% include all the work and energy required to actually produce, transport and deliver the fuel it's using?

A Tesla was stolen by me, and being chased by the police.. Driver crashed the car through a light and cut the car in half. It hit soo hard that half the car ended up in a building, with the other half on the street. People filmed the car as the batteries continued to explode like fireworks..