Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Future For Car Motive Technology


Recommended Posts

250kg of batteries is going to hinder any electric car no matter how fast they charge up. You have the weight which lowers performance and also the cost of the batteries which is probably one of the biggest costs in an electric car.

If you can draw power off the road on the fly the car is 250kg lighter & no batteries to pay for.

Electric cars will never become a reality (ie more than 50% of car sales are electric cars) unless they draw power directly from the road.

Yes but a 100kw electric motor is considerably lighter than an equivalent ICE particularly diesel

and 60 litres of petrol / diesel weighs around 52kg

Edited by Kurt Barlow
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yes but a 100kw electric motor is considerably lighter than an equivalent ICE particularly diesel

and 60 litres of petrol / diesel weighs around 52kg

How can you disagree that direct power from the road would not be better than power via batteries.

As for IC engines, they are quite light these days. A 1.2 litre engine is usually sub 50kg.

60 litres of petrol will get you 700 miles.

We will get fake electrics such as hybrids but we will not get pure electric cars unless cars can draw power directly from the road. Not a difficult task but expensive to electrify most the roads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you disagree that direct power from the road would not be better than power via batteries.

As for IC engines, they are quite light these days. A 1.2 litre engine is usually sub 50kg.

60 litres of petrol will get you 700 miles.

We will get fake electrics such as hybrids but we will not get pure electric cars unless cars can draw power directly from the road. Not a difficult task but expensive to electrify most the roads.

No one disputes that petrol / diesel is a more concentrated fuel source.

As for engine weight - fair point.

Regarding electrication of the roads - perhaps we best concentrate on electrifying our railways first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No one disputes that petrol / diesel is a more concentrated fuel source.

As for engine weight - fair point.

Regarding electrication of the roads - perhaps we best concentrate on electrifying our railways first.

There is no need to do any.

IC engine is perfect for now. Cheap to run, affordable, proven technology.

Why would anyone want costly battery powered cars?

Petrol today is 92p a litre, of which 14p is VAT and 50p Duty. Or the actual petrol minus tax is about 28pence per litre and looks to be heating towards 25p per litre soon.

It is stupid to compare an electric car with no tax on its fuel to a car with tax on its fuel.

Your probably looking at oil prices at $500 before anything other than IC engine makes sense!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cells, you seem to be dominating this thread arguing with everyone about everything and throwing in a few insults to boot. Please leave this discussion now to those who care about the future of the human race and the planet. The people who started this thread and contributed were just interested in discussing the latest technologies for a more energy efficient transport system. Those contributing positively to this thread are concerned about peak oil, climate change or just interested in new technology.

Those predicting peak oil feel that humanity could be heading for disaster ("population overshoot" and "die off") as in the long term the era of cheap oil is over. The consequences could be dire as it is only the availability of energy which has allowed population levels to jump dramatically in an unprecedented manner over the last 100 years. The removal of cheap oil from the system may see the human population decline equally quickly (carnage in other words), as oil and gas have become so important to the the systems that allow us to maintain human life (at the expense of most others species on the planet). It's not just oil and gas either!

chefurka02.gif

The foolish rush to biofuels within a couple of years doubled the cost of the staple carbohydrates and made life much harder for the majority of the world's population who live on less that $ 5 a day. How many people have been killed in the developing world in order to maintain the lifestyles of us in the so-called 'developed' world - half a million in one country we invaded for it's oil.

The psychology that makes people deny we have some serious problems to deal with are, and our addiction to consumption, are covered well in one of the most thought provoking articles I have ever read, by Nate Hagens (even if US centric) I am Human, I'm American, and I'm Addicted to Oil...

Climate change offers a greater long term challenge, but already is affecting the world's poorest. How long have most of the major cities in the world got before they will be completely under water: 100 years 200 years or less? And how long until most of the planet is uninhabitable?

There were those who have been predicting the current economic crash for many years, I've linked to two in my sig. They were written off as doom mongers even just a few months ago.

Just because oil prices are low at the moment doesn't mean that is the way they are going to stay, and as we enter recession people will get poorer, lose their jobs, lose their homes and for them the cost of running a car will be prohibitive, so effectively oil prices will be high for them. Already the amount of traffic on the roads is in decline:- Traffic levels fall for the first time in decades: Motor firms head for crash More people are cycling, walking, taking the bus or train, or just making fewer car journeys (or even car sharing). There are bigger and scarier changes to come in our lifetimes, unless rational, scientific, logical humanitarian steps are taken now by our leaders. The challenges are immense!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cells, you seem to be dominating this thread arguing with everyone about everything and throwing in a few insults to boot. Please leave this discussion now to those who care about the future of the human race and the planet. The people who started this thread and contributed were just interested in discussing the latest technologies for a more energy efficient transport system. Those contributing positively to this thread are concerned about peak oil, climate change or just interested in new technology.

Those predicting peak oil feel that humanity could be heading for disaster ("population overshoot" and "die off") as in the long term the era of cheap oil is over. The consequences could be dire as it is only the availability of energy which has allowed population levels to jump dramatically in an unprecedented manner over the last 100 years. The removal of cheap oil from the system may see the human population decline equally quickly (carnage in other words), as oil and gas have become so important to the the systems that allow us to maintain human life (at the expense of most others species on the planet). It's not just oil and gas either!

The foolish rush to biofuels within a couple of years doubled the cost of the staple carbohydrates and made life much harder for the majority of the world's population who live on less that $ 5 a day. How many people have been killed in the developing world in order to maintain the lifestyles of us in the so-called 'developed' world - half a million in one country we invaded for it's oil.

The psychology that makes people deny we have some serious problems to deal with are, and our addiction to consumption, are covered well in one of the most thought provoking articles I have ever read, by Nate Hagens (even if US centric) I am Human, I'm American, and I'm Addicted to Oil...

Climate change offers a greater long term challenge, but already is affecting the world's poorest. How long have most of the major cities in the world got before they will be completely under water: 100 years 200 years or less? And how long until most of the planet is uninhabitable?

There were those who have been predicting the current economic crash for many years, I've linked to two in my sig. They were written off as doom mongers even just a few months ago.

Just because oil prices are low at the moment doesn't mean that is the way they are going to stay, and as we enter recession people will get poorer, lose their jobs, lose their homes and for them the cost of running a car will be prohibitive, so effectively oil prices will be high for them. Already the amount of traffic on the roads is in decline:- Traffic levels fall for the first time in decades: Motor firms head for crash More people are cycling, walking, taking the bus or train, or just making fewer car journeys (or even car sharing). There are bigger and scarier changes to come in our lifetimes, unless rational, scientific, logical humanitarian steps are taken now by our leaders. The challenges are immense!

Everything you just wrote is propaganda by anti growth groups. Hippies that want everyone to live like nomads and hate corporations and development. I would bet a lot of these people are racists and would absolutely love to limit population growth especially in china/india. Your being had by crazy fundamentalists. Worse yet, your becoming one and trying to convert others.

Like I already said, peak oil is not very important. We have not yet reached peak energy. We are awash with energy, we will be for a long time.

And for your population vs oil theory. Did you strip out all of mans advances from clean water to cheap food to new medicines to medical care to less wars? Or did you assume none of those things affect population?? you will find that most of the population increase was due to other things, not oil.

You also need to get a grip and be realistic. Like I said, petrol at 92p is NOT enough to use “alternatives”. Then consider that petrol is actually 25p a liter and you soon find out that all other forms of engines are unrealistic.

We have the IC engine, it is perfect for now and nothing comes close. The only thing that might have a chance and a small one at that is electric cars drawing power from the road directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything you just wrote is propaganda by anti growth groups. Hippies that want everyone to live like nomads and hate corporations and development. I would bet a lot of these people are racists and would absolutely love to limit population growth especially in china/india. Your being had by crazy fundamentalists. Worse yet, your becoming one and trying to convert others.

Hippy - No, Racist - No, Fundamentalist - No, Scientist/Engineer - Yes, Realist - Yes, Pessimist - Yes, Believer in our corporations, banks and governments - No, Sustainable Development - Yes, Education - YES, (good grammer and spelling - Yes - well, at least make the f'ing effort!)

Cells I like your idea of putting electric tracks on the roads - a shockingly good way to solve the population problem. Alternatively we could make big electric cars, charge people to travel on them, run them from overhead cables and we could call them 'trams'.

Something we haven't discussed so far is the concept of 'Personal Rapid Transit' (PRT). The idea seems to consist of a network of tracks, roadways at or above street level with individual pods that wait at stops (on a loop off the main track) for individuals or groups to climb in and to enter their destination on a control panel. A computer would control the whole thing, 'public transport lite', giving the privacy of a car, but a Docklands Light Railway driver-less roller-coaster-ride experience.

For more info check out: Wikipedia PRT Page and Washington.edu PRT page

There are plenty of pages pouring scorn on the concept as being ugly, intrusive and inefficient and a poor alternative to established public transport systems such as buses, trams, trains and light rail.

Here are some of these links:- lightrailnow.org; PRT is a JOKE; PRT - A Cargo Cult of the Post-Petroleum Era

Having made a few trips across Amsterdam by tram/foot and bicycle, I believe this is the combination we should be looking for in our cities. The trams are fast, regular, convenient and connect well even if you need to change routes 2 or 3 times in one journey. Combine these with decent cycle lanes that actually protect the cyclist from drivers and give cyclists preference at traffic lights. The trams are tough enough to persuade motorists that it is the trams that rule the road. In London, despite Ken's best efforts, we have a poor imitation of this kind of system that seems to leave everyone short of a decent transport solution, however they decide to travel.

We should make public transport (long and short distance) cheap enough and fast and integrated enough to take the cars off the roads and we should get away from the idea that we need cars at all, with the traffic jams, road rage and pollution they bring. Vans for genuine businesses like mine, excepted of course!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hippy - No, Racist - No, Fundamentalist - No, Scientist/Engineer - Yes, Realist - Yes, Pessimist - Yes, Believer in our corporations, banks and governments - No, Sustainable Development - Yes, Education - YES, (good grammer and spelling - Yes - well, at least make the f'ing effort!)

Cells I like your idea of putting electric tracks on the roads - a shockingly good way to solve the population problem. Alternatively we could make big electric cars, charge people to travel on them, run them from overhead cables and we could call them 'trams'.

Something we haven't discussed so far is the concept of 'Personal Rapid Transit' (PRT). The idea seems to consist of a network of tracks, roadways at or above street level with individual pods that wait at stops (on a loop off the main track) for individuals or groups to climb in and to enter their destination on a control panel. A computer would control the whole thing, 'public transport lite', giving the privacy of a car, but a Docklands Light Railway driver-less roller-coaster-ride experience.

For more info check out: Wikipedia PRT Page and Washington.edu PRT page

There are plenty of pages pouring scorn on the concept as being ugly, intrusive and inefficient and a poor alternative to established public transport systems such as buses, trams, trains and light rail.

Here are some of these links:- lightrailnow.org; PRT is a JOKE; PRT - A Cargo Cult of the Post-Petroleum Era

Having made a few trips across Amsterdam by tram/foot and bicycle, I believe this is the combination we should be looking for in our cities. The trams are fast, regular, convenient and connect well even if you need to change routes 2 or 3 times in one journey. Combine these with decent cycle lanes that actually protect the cyclist from drivers and give cyclists preference at traffic lights. The trams are tough enough to persuade motorists that it is the trams that rule the road. In London, despite Ken's best efforts, we have a poor imitation of this kind of system that seems to leave everyone short of a decent transport solution, however they decide to travel.

We should make public transport (long and short distance) cheap enough and fast and integrated enough to take the cars off the roads and we should get away from the idea that we need cars at all, with the traffic jams, road rage and pollution they bring. Vans for genuine businesses like mine, excepted of course!

Hey Pessimist - Good post

I see you are relatively new here - have you seen some of the solar power threads I did over the Summer / Autumn?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything you just wrote is propaganda by anti growth groups. Hippies that want everyone to live like nomads and hate corporations and development. I would bet a lot of these people are racists and would absolutely love to limit population growth especially in china/india. Your being had by crazy fundamentalists. Worse yet, your becoming one and trying to convert others.

Like I already said, peak oil is not very important. We have not yet reached peak energy. We are awash with energy, we will be for a long time.

And for your population vs oil theory. Did you strip out all of mans advances from clean water to cheap food to new medicines to medical care to less wars? Or did you assume none of those things affect population?? you will find that most of the population increase was due to other things, not oil.

You also need to get a grip and be realistic. Like I said, petrol at 92p is NOT enough to use “alternatives”. Then consider that petrol is actually 25p a liter and you soon find out that all other forms of engines are unrealistic.

We have the IC engine, it is perfect for now and nothing comes close. The only thing that might have a chance and a small one at that is electric cars drawing power from the road directly.

Clean water requires energy. Cheap food relies on fossil fuels - natural gas based fertilisers and oil-based pesticides - and medicine requires petrochemicals for drugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clean water requires energy. Cheap food relies on fossil fuels - natural gas based fertilisers and oil-based pesticides - and medicine requires petrochemicals for drugs.

Please explain how india has gone from 375m to 1,130m in 50 years with almost ZERO access to affordable oil. The average indian during the last 50 years could not afford any meaningfull amounts of crude oil.

They added 800,000,000 to their population not through oil but though everything else, mostly better medicine and healthcare.

It was NOT oil. When we hit peak oil and pass it the population will not suddenly fall from 7B to 1B!!

you crazy comrade.

PS.. shouldn't you be starting another “save GM” thread, I think its been 3minutes since the last one!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please explain how india has gone from 375m to 1,130m in 50 years with almost ZERO access to affordable oil. The average indian during the last 50 years could not afford any meaningfull amounts of crude oil.

They added 800,000,000 to their population not through oil but though everything else, mostly better medicine and healthcare.It was NOT oil. When we hit peak oil and pass it the population will not suddenly fall from 7B to 1B!!

you crazy comrade.

PS.. shouldn't you be starting another “save GM” thread, I think its been 3minutes since the last one!

And increased their consumption of oil 10 fold over since 1965 not to mention massive increases in the consumption of coal, gas, and development of nuclear power..........

Link to post
Share on other sites
And increased their consumption of oil 10 fold over since 1965 not to mention massive increases in the consumption of coal, gas, and development of nuclear power..........

The poor of india which vastly outnumber the middle or rich probably use as much oil/energy today as they did 50 years ago.

They have no cars, they have no electricity, they grow what they eat naturally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Every heard of the Green Revolution :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India

I think you should cut down on your consumption of plastic tainted potatoes you grow in those tires of yours!

Your mind seems to be affected! That link says better management and technology was responsible for less famine.

There is no arguing that cheap energy sure does help a nation and its population grow. What I have stated is that other factors have contributed more to increasing world population than oil!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you should cut down on your consumption of plastic tainted potatoes you grow in those tires of yours!

Your mind seems to be affected! That link says better management and technology was responsible for less famine.

There is no arguing that cheap energy sure does help a nation and its population grow. What I have stated is that other factors have contributed more to increasing world population than oil!

It also opens with a sentence including 'increased use of fertilisers' - whats the betting a significant proportion of that extra fertiliser was inorganic NPK's ;)

Although not stated in that link another feature of India's green revolution was increased mechanisation - particularly on the larger commerical farms - do I need to draw pictures.... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Electricity network is not up to widespread use of electric cars yet, however I'm sure it could be given time.

There is absolutely no way electricity from renewables can provide the amount of energy needed to power the recharging of thousands of cars. The increase in power required after rushhour would make the eastenders demand surge look tiny. The only renewable source capable of supplying a significant amount of energy reliably and when required is hydropower, Norway, Scotland and Wales could be ok but the rest of us in England would need something else. Nuclear power can provide huge amounts of electricity but is suited to base load power supply rather than providing for the peaks, as with fossil fuels its response time is rather slower than required. Of course you could generate even more electricity than required, as is done at present but on a larger scale and burn more of it off in cooling towers untill that extra is needed, but that would be a bit wasteful.

Prehaps improving the electricity transmission network could be the answer, using high voltage direct current (HVDC) to minimise energy losses over large distances and under water. Different countries could then be linked and peak demand over the entire system can be spread out a bit. A good link with Norway could do wonders for the environment and they are keen to export electricity, especially with North sea gas in decline..

Heres an interesting link from a while back ( http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m151...ag=artBody;col1 ) about flywheels. Seems a good idea especially if you could replace flywheel modules at a garage/depot for charged ones. This fella talks about generating electricity from the flywheel which is then used to drive the cars motors which seems a bit wasteful to me (energy transfer = energy losses) but they do seem to have a big weight advantage over batterys. It would be good if we could convert the kinetic energy in the flywheel straight to the wheels, I presume the high rotation speed of the flywheel makes this difficult. Regenerative braking woud be easy though.

Any coments?

Ollie

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
And for your population vs oil theory. Did you strip out all of mans advances from clean water to cheap food to new medicines to medical care to less wars? Or did you assume none of those things affect population?? you will find that most of the population increase was due to other things, not oil.

Medicines: require energy for reasearch, development, production and transportation, the workers use energy etc.etc.

Cheap food: fertilisers, pesticides (think you are either foolish or argumentative for not seeing a relationship between cheap food and cheap energy)

Water that'll be energy again.

Mans advances ALWAYS come from energy

Slaves

Sail boat

Horses

Steam

Oil

The industrial revolution and the division of labour are driven by energy its availability and mans ability to harness it.

I do agree we could all wear more jumpers I certainly do.

But being an experienced allotmenter and food grower I can tell you that replacing persticides and fertilisers with human sweat requires a lot of effort.

Go read about Cuba and see how important energy is to us and what happens when we can't get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Medicines: require energy for reasearch, development, production and transportation, the workers use energy etc.etc.

Cheap food: fertilisers, pesticides (think you are either foolish or argumentative for not seeing a relationship between cheap food and cheap energy)

Water that'll be energy again.

Mans advances ALWAYS come from energy

Slaves

Sail boat

Horses

Steam

Oil

The industrial revolution and the division of labour are driven by energy its availability and mans ability to harness it.

I do agree we could all wear more jumpers I certainly do.

But being an experienced allotmenter and food grower I can tell you that replacing persticides and fertilisers with human sweat requires a lot of effort.

Go read about Cuba and see how important energy is to us and what happens when we can't get it.

An excellent post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 9 months later...

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/star-cars-2010/introduction/245689

Some common themes starting to emerge........

* More competition in the smaller car segment, including from the 'prestige' manufacturers

* Smaller, more efficient engines - petrol and diesel. 60/70/80 av. mpg claimed.

* Petrol/electric hybrids appear to be coming to production, with charging stations planned in some UK cities.

* C02 emissions continue to drop, with more cars below 100g/km - I guess we'll continue to see the tax system skewed in favour of lower emissions despite Copenhagen.

* Improved aero dynamics, stop/start engine technology and semi-auto gearboxes becoming more commonplace, even in smaller models.

* Prices up (?) some of this new technology appears pretty expensive.

This looks like the potential beginning of a 'transition' phase, or at least the introduction of alternatives to the petrol/diesel only engines in the real world.

It will be interesting to see whether anyone buys them and how they perform, especially in the UK where short avg. commutes ought to favour these types of cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

All electric golf in full production in 2013.

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/vw-s-golf-gets-blue-e-motion/249406

The first of Volkswagen's all-electric vehicles will go on sale in 2013, in the form of the Up Blue-e-motion, closely followed by Golf and Jetta blue-e-motion. <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><b>The Golf version will use a 113bhp electric motor powered by lithium-ion batteries. <br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Accelerating from 0-62mph in 11.8 seconds, the Golf Blue-e-motion will be capable of 86mph, with a range of up to 90 miles between charges.</b><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">A fleet of 500 prototype Golf Blue-e-motion cars will begin testing in real-world conditions in 2011. Full production will begin in 2013.

Similar performance to a 1.6 petrol engine I think. The 90 mile range would be approx. 5 days commuting based on an average UK commute of 7 miles.

I wouldn't want to be an early adopter due to the cost, but it looks like these may soon be perfectly viable for the UK and Europe. Next up - electricity generating capacity I guess.

<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.