SomptingGuy
Automotive
See title. An open question to all. What will we be driving in 10 years time? (I'll have added another 20k to my '87 Volvo, but that's another matter).
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Gas/Hybrid, Diesel, Diesel/Hybrid, Fuel Cell - where will it end? 13
- Thread starter SomptingGuy
- Start date
- Status
My prediction is as follows.
1) Hydrocarbon fuel will continue to be the fuel of choice for the next 20 to 40 years. This will change as oil supplys are much less than demand causing a steep increase in price.
2) Somewhere along the way, someone will figure out that the ony viable alternative energy source is solar (solar cells primarilly). Electricy has many benefits but the primary one is that energy is needed to produce alternate energy forms (say, make hydrogen out of water).
3)Oil, coal and natural gas will become feed stocks for material production (plastics).
1) Hydrocarbon fuel will continue to be the fuel of choice for the next 20 to 40 years. This will change as oil supplys are much less than demand causing a steep increase in price.
2) Somewhere along the way, someone will figure out that the ony viable alternative energy source is solar (solar cells primarilly). Electricy has many benefits but the primary one is that energy is needed to produce alternate energy forms (say, make hydrogen out of water).
3)Oil, coal and natural gas will become feed stocks for material production (plastics).
automotivebreath
Automotive
Going along with sreid's prediction, it's important to
realize that current gasoline fueled engines have higher
potential that what we see in production. Here's a quote
from David Vizard on the subject, when reading remember
this was 30 years ago:
"In 1975 I was the lead engineer on an economy project. The
subject was a 1275 Mini GT. That’s a direct relative of the
original 1275 Mini Cooper."
"The goal was to see if we could get this car to do 50 mpg at
50 mph. Once that had been achieved it would be taken on a
3 month round USA drive at normal highway speeds (not fuel
economy test speeds which would take forever to go anywhere)
and see if we could get 50 mpg.. An independent test at
MIRA (Motor Industry Research Association) on a truly lousy
wet and windy winter day recorded 55 mpg at 50 mph and 99
mpg at 30 mph. OK that 99 mpg is real close to 100 but do we
all want to drive at no more than 30mph – no! Not only that
but that 99 mpg was achieved with a 1600 lb car. The same
size car today weighs in at over 2100 lbs and the average
mid sized sedan at 2800 lbs plus."
realize that current gasoline fueled engines have higher
potential that what we see in production. Here's a quote
from David Vizard on the subject, when reading remember
this was 30 years ago:
"In 1975 I was the lead engineer on an economy project. The
subject was a 1275 Mini GT. That’s a direct relative of the
original 1275 Mini Cooper."
"The goal was to see if we could get this car to do 50 mpg at
50 mph. Once that had been achieved it would be taken on a
3 month round USA drive at normal highway speeds (not fuel
economy test speeds which would take forever to go anywhere)
and see if we could get 50 mpg.. An independent test at
MIRA (Motor Industry Research Association) on a truly lousy
wet and windy winter day recorded 55 mpg at 50 mph and 99
mpg at 30 mph. OK that 99 mpg is real close to 100 but do we
all want to drive at no more than 30mph – no! Not only that
but that 99 mpg was achieved with a 1600 lb car. The same
size car today weighs in at over 2100 lbs and the average
mid sized sedan at 2800 lbs plus."
globi5
Mechanical
- Oct 10, 2005
- 281
- 0
- 0
I don't think, it'll move away from hydrocarbons anytime soon either.
If one can easily double the efficiency of a gasoline or diesel engine with or without hybrid and even much further increase it, with a plug-in hybrid, why would hydrogen ever be a viable alternative?
Hydrogen distribution is not there.
Hydrogen efficiency is not there.
Hydrogen storage is not there.
Hydrogen costs are not there.
Gasoline, Diesel and Electricity distribution is there.
Electric efficiency is there.
Gasoline and Diesel storage is there.
Gasoline, Diesel and Electricity costs are there.
VW already sold a 78 mpg diesel car (Lupo) without hybrid. So reaching 100 mpg with hybrid doesn't sound like a technical stretch. A plug in hybrid could easily double that and would probably still be considerably less costly than a hydrogen fuel cell car.
If one can easily double the efficiency of a gasoline or diesel engine with or without hybrid and even much further increase it, with a plug-in hybrid, why would hydrogen ever be a viable alternative?
Hydrogen distribution is not there.
Hydrogen efficiency is not there.
Hydrogen storage is not there.
Hydrogen costs are not there.
Gasoline, Diesel and Electricity distribution is there.
Electric efficiency is there.
Gasoline and Diesel storage is there.
Gasoline, Diesel and Electricity costs are there.
VW already sold a 78 mpg diesel car (Lupo) without hybrid. So reaching 100 mpg with hybrid doesn't sound like a technical stretch. A plug in hybrid could easily double that and would probably still be considerably less costly than a hydrogen fuel cell car.
GregLocock
Automotive
BMW's current hydrogen car is a joke. 30% of the fuel boils off each day whether you use it or not. Therefore the energy efficiency is appalling, in real life.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
Where does the hydrogen come from???? Honestly, half the non-technical people I know think it can be withdrawn from a well somewhere!
It takes electricity (lots of it) and water, neither of which are plentiful in many places. The Pacific NW? Electricity production takes more water.
Coal-to-LNG looks like the most practical solution to me. But it takes water too!
It takes electricity (lots of it) and water, neither of which are plentiful in many places. The Pacific NW? Electricity production takes more water.
Coal-to-LNG looks like the most practical solution to me. But it takes water too!
When something becomes scarce, the price rises and there are economic pressures to find alternatives. So long as no viable alternatives exist, that scarce item becomes increasingly profitable. There is roughly 1 trillion barrels worth of crude oil remaining in the earth’s crust. If scarcity drives the price to $100 per barrel, that’s $100 trillion worth of business yet to be done.
It follows that huge profits can be made by deliberately manipulating the price of crude oil. This manipulation is easy when supply exactly meets demand. Any technology which potentially unbalances this perfect ratio, by increasing supply or reducing demand, is a direct threat to a potential $100 trillion business.
Why are there no electric cars on the road? Why have there been no new oil refineries built in the last 25 years? Why has there been no significant increase in average vehicle fuel economy over the last 20 years? Why don’t we have more nuclear power plants? When such huge profits are put at risk, the answer to all these questions should be obvious. Who has the power to influence such decisions? Would they be aggressive in exercising this power to protect their $100 trillion?
What are the unintended consequences of using all this crude oil? We suffer from urban air pollution, asthma/lung disease/cancer, increased global warming and a strategic weakness for foreign oil.
It follows that huge profits can be made by deliberately manipulating the price of crude oil. This manipulation is easy when supply exactly meets demand. Any technology which potentially unbalances this perfect ratio, by increasing supply or reducing demand, is a direct threat to a potential $100 trillion business.
Why are there no electric cars on the road? Why have there been no new oil refineries built in the last 25 years? Why has there been no significant increase in average vehicle fuel economy over the last 20 years? Why don’t we have more nuclear power plants? When such huge profits are put at risk, the answer to all these questions should be obvious. Who has the power to influence such decisions? Would they be aggressive in exercising this power to protect their $100 trillion?
What are the unintended consequences of using all this crude oil? We suffer from urban air pollution, asthma/lung disease/cancer, increased global warming and a strategic weakness for foreign oil.
patprimmer
New member
Does this mean I should buy an aluminium foil hat?
Regards
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Regards
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Sorry, am I in the wrong chat room? For a moment I thought this was an engineering forum. Are we supposed to use logic or testosterone? It seems clear to me that decisions about the direction of technology should be made primarily by engineers. This was the case at one time. In my lifetime I have seen such decisions move from engineers to sales departments, to accountants, then attorneys and finally politicians (with “advice” from large corporations).
FoMoCoMoFo
Automotive
Absolutely not. You have to make it yourself. The ones "they" sell won't prevent "them" from monitoring your mind. It's a fun project, and if it does nothing else it will reduce your exposure to solar radiation (a known carcinogen) As for its effectiveness in preventing corporate interests from dictating energy policy, I'm not so sure.
Dickon17, just be thankful that religious leaders are not defining the direction of technology in your neighborhood. On second thought, does it really make much difference if it is a group of religious leaders or accountants, attorneys, or politicians? However, engineers’ salaries and professional status would be much better if engineers could define the direction of technology.
"When you can buy a non-concept electric car with 200 mile range @ 2 cents a mile?
Except, of course, you can't buy one at any price.
* We are currently in the midst of the important and time-consuming safety and durability testing for the Tesla Roadster. While we are confident of our numbers, this testing may require design changes that affect the final specifications.
Except, of course, you can't buy one at any price.
* We are currently in the midst of the important and time-consuming safety and durability testing for the Tesla Roadster. While we are confident of our numbers, this testing may require design changes that affect the final specifications.
- Thread starter
- #33
SomptingGuy
Automotive
"135 mpg equivalent"
Equivalent to what exactly? Un-taxed domestic electricity vs taxed pump gas perhaps?
Equivalent to what exactly? Un-taxed domestic electricity vs taxed pump gas perhaps?
j2bprometheus
Mechanical
sreid -
I've heard that the energy required to make solar cells is very high. So it takes 15-20 years of the solar cell operating to make the energy required to produce the solar cell.
Anybody got any accurate numbers?
Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it is a means to store energy, and a lousy one at that. You have to use some real energy source (solar, wind, nuclear, coal, natural gas, etc.) to make the hydrogen.
Check out this analysis of hydrogen as a fuel source:
j2bprometheus
I've heard that the energy required to make solar cells is very high. So it takes 15-20 years of the solar cell operating to make the energy required to produce the solar cell.
Anybody got any accurate numbers?
Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it is a means to store energy, and a lousy one at that. You have to use some real energy source (solar, wind, nuclear, coal, natural gas, etc.) to make the hydrogen.
Check out this analysis of hydrogen as a fuel source:
j2bprometheus
Is there a cost comparison for Kw per mile for all the different energy sources.
The hydrocarbon fuels would be easy to compare but what about Fuel Cells, Hydrogen and battery power. Of course it would have to be amortized over five years or so, to account for the source cost and infrastructure.
That is the problem of comparing apples to oranges. If a relative price/cost is analyzed it would have to be based on just economic measures, and then ecological advantages.
Cheers
I don't know anything but the people that do.
The hydrocarbon fuels would be easy to compare but what about Fuel Cells, Hydrogen and battery power. Of course it would have to be amortized over five years or so, to account for the source cost and infrastructure.
That is the problem of comparing apples to oranges. If a relative price/cost is analyzed it would have to be based on just economic measures, and then ecological advantages.
Cheers
I don't know anything but the people that do.
globi5
Mechanical
- Oct 10, 2005
- 281
- 0
- 0
@ SomptingGuy
135 mpg is explained here:
Actually you should surf their site - it's pretty interesting. I bet you won't find this much information about the development process of any car on any other car manufacturers website.
@ j2bprometheus
As far as energy payback of PV is concerned:
actually thinfilm cells can have an energy pay back time of less than one year and obviously even less if they substitute part of the building structure (e.g. roof, facade or even windows).
It's interesting to see that Applied Materials and Oerlikon receive lots of orders for solar thinfilm factories. Both companies have been providing the semiconductor industry for decades with coating equipment (hardly any ICs, storage devices, CDs, DVDs, flat screens etc. without them).
The applied materials equipment actually produces thinfilm solar cells with a size of 5.7 m2 (one cell). (Compare this to 0.02 m2 of a typical crystalline silicon based cell.)
Their business modell is not to sell solar cells, but to sell equipment to produce solar cells (as with the semiconductor industry). Some of these factories will reach an output of over 100 MW annually.
(Of course, this will not have much of an affect on the automotive industry, but it will eventually have an effect on the power industry.)
135 mpg is explained here:
Actually you should surf their site - it's pretty interesting. I bet you won't find this much information about the development process of any car on any other car manufacturers website.
@ j2bprometheus
As far as energy payback of PV is concerned:
actually thinfilm cells can have an energy pay back time of less than one year and obviously even less if they substitute part of the building structure (e.g. roof, facade or even windows).
It's interesting to see that Applied Materials and Oerlikon receive lots of orders for solar thinfilm factories. Both companies have been providing the semiconductor industry for decades with coating equipment (hardly any ICs, storage devices, CDs, DVDs, flat screens etc. without them).
The applied materials equipment actually produces thinfilm solar cells with a size of 5.7 m2 (one cell). (Compare this to 0.02 m2 of a typical crystalline silicon based cell.)
Their business modell is not to sell solar cells, but to sell equipment to produce solar cells (as with the semiconductor industry). Some of these factories will reach an output of over 100 MW annually.
(Of course, this will not have much of an affect on the automotive industry, but it will eventually have an effect on the power industry.)
globi5
Mechanical
- Oct 10, 2005
- 281
- 0
- 0
Here's a paper about the environmental impacts of crystalline silicone PV modules including BOS (balance of system: Wiring, electronics, frame, appliances etc.).
(this is crystalline - not thinfilm).
(this is crystalline - not thinfilm).
dickon17 pointed out that the turn over of new cars is only 5% a year.
We need to think how to build the retrofitting industry that will speed up the turn over. We can't wait 20 years. Once particular solution is find it should be introduced as fast as possible.
I just wait when the hub motors will be in mass production. That should start true revolution in automotive industry. The $18 000 for custom build hub motor is still way too high. The hub motor are not that much complicated then regular electric motor, so I expect that in mass production the price should drop to couple thousand dollar .
We need to think how to build the retrofitting industry that will speed up the turn over. We can't wait 20 years. Once particular solution is find it should be introduced as fast as possible.
I just wait when the hub motors will be in mass production. That should start true revolution in automotive industry. The $18 000 for custom build hub motor is still way too high. The hub motor are not that much complicated then regular electric motor, so I expect that in mass production the price should drop to couple thousand dollar .
Gas/Hybrid, Diesel, Diesel/Hybrid, Fuel Cell - where will it end?....
How about some external combustion in hybrid configuration.
I start a thread about steam engine for cars:
I will recommended to callously examine the steam engine from Cyclone Power Technologies – very promising.
That might be one solution among others that can give us some edge utile something better come out.
How about some external combustion in hybrid configuration.
I start a thread about steam engine for cars:
I will recommended to callously examine the steam engine from Cyclone Power Technologies – very promising.
That might be one solution among others that can give us some edge utile something better come out.
- Status
Similar threads
