falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
Of course you can use the electricity directly, wherever it makes sense!
It makes sense anywhere except, perhaps, in some quite exceptional situations. For sure it makes sense in cars!
Well, my concept offers the possibility to generate all worldwide needed electricity outside the earths atmosphere in the orbit and to balance the the enegy level in the atmosphere.
I'd say use this electricity directly whereever it makes sense - and use it to generate hydrogene and oxygene for those application areas, where using electricity directly does make little sense (e.g. in aeroplanes).
Of course it already makes sense to use electricity directly in cars. We're doing this as well here at Ford.
But the problem is that people hesitate to make up their minds for electric cars with one of their strongest arguments being that they're missing the (combustion) engines sound.
So what can we do against this subjective perception?
There already have been ideas to use the car's HiFi equipment to generate (sythesise) the sound they're used to in dependance to the actual manner of driving...
If there wasn't the sound problem, I could as well think of an weight and energy saving "hybrid" concept:
Remove the combustion engine, the gearbox and so on, and replace it with a small turbine (preferrably operated with hydrogene and oxygene) that drives an small generator.
The generator produces the needed electricity to run the four electric engines which are integrated into the wheels.
This would significantly reduce the mass of the vehicle in general and so reduce the reqired amount of fuel (no matter which). Such vehicles could be used for application areas where no electricity is available to recharge the accu/battery.
Hydrogene and oxygene operated turbines could replace the ones operated with kerosene in all sorts of aircrafts.
falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
falemagn wrote:
Battery technology has improved a lot and continues to do so.
...but involves a lot of substances hazardous to health and environment, once released - maybe by an crash.
We're not in the times of lead-acid batteries anymore, these are the times of lithium ions batteries mixed with certain kind of nanomaterials that boost their performances and make them viable alternatives to fuel.
Have a look at AltairNano and A123, for instance.
Yeah, nice things - and as I said, use them where it makes sense.
(Unfortunately it doesn't make sense everywhere...)
falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
Furthermore current batteries (which actually are accumulators) mean a lot of additional weight, which results in less payload or less operating range.
Accumulator is a broader term than "battery". A rechargeable battery is an accumulator, but an accumulator isn't necessarily a battery.
Hmmmmm - in the German language the term "battery" means at least two (connected) galvanic cells. In the common language it is also wrongly used for single cells.
"Accumulator" in German means a
rechargable battery (short: Akku).
I thought it would be similar in the english language - but obviously I was wrong...
falemagn wrote:
As for weight, what matters is power density, which measures how much energy can be stored in a unit of volume, and certain batteries have power density higher than standard fuel which makes them more viable than fuel. Add to that that electric motors are less complicated and much lighter than ICE's, and you get the right picture.
Here's some real world examples, cars you can buy right now: the Tesla Motors' sport car and the Phoenix Motors' SUT.
Head to http://www.autobloggreen.com/ to see what this is all about.
Yeah - you might want to add these as well:
electric Ford "Ranger""Think!" in Canada
falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
falemagn wrote:
Moreover, hydrogen is quite a dangerous gas, it needs to be stored properly, transported properly, and needs very costly infrastructures.
While it`s not so dangerous as you may think, you are of course right - "it needs to be stored properly, transported properly, and needs very costly infrastructures".
But this is valid for all other fuels as well, especially, if you include the costs for damages to the environment.
It's not valid for electricity: we do have transport infrastructures for it already in place and battery technology has improved to a point where environmental concerns are just out of place: lithium isn't environmentally hazardous and it can be recycled.
Basically you're right - just that I (maybe as a result of being a native German speaker) I never thought of "electricity" when talking about "fuel" up to now.
In the German language "fuel" generally is liquid, best gaseous (fuel = Treibstoff = "driving stuff"; while e.g. "coal" = Kohle is a so called "Brennstoff", which means something along the lines of "firing stuff").
Furthermore we have enough wide, wide areas on this planet where no sign of electric infrastructure exists (yet). If you want to explore those areas with electric vehicles only, you might not be able to recharge your accus.
If hydrogene gas leaks out of a tank, it immediately rises rises up to the sky, as hydrogene is the lightest element.
Yes, and it might react with the oxygen in the air, explosively so, or go up to the higher atmosphere where it's likely to
cause damages to the ozone layer.
The danger of explosions is only given, if you mix hydrogene with pure oxygene.
"Air" doesn't contain enough oxygene to create an "explosion".
Hydrogene (under normal conditions) just "burns" in air...
As to "damages to the ozone layer" - do you think there would be much left of the ozone layer to damage, given the amount of years it would take to realize an hydrogene economie?
I'm afraid we've to think of/to invent an arteficial replacrement for it anyway...
falemagn wrote:
Dandy wrote:
So in case of an accident where a hydrogene tank is penetrated, the "dangerous fuel" immediately rises up in the air (in contrary to a case where a gasoline tank is penetrated) where it either peacefully burns or is diluted until the concentration is beyond fammability.
You forget that to store hydrogen you need very high pressures, which means that if you manage to break an hydrogen tank you need to be prepared to some of the most disastrous explosions both for the flammability of the gas and the pressure it's stored at.
Regardless, there are economical reasons for which hydrogen just doesn't make sense for cars, as explained by the page I gave you a link to.
There are several different ways to store hydrogene:
1) as compressed gas (that's what you're referring to)
2) liquid at a very low temperature (still explosive->Challenger)
3) Solid-State Hydrogen Storage based on reversible metal hydrides (relatively safe, as far as I know)
As to "economical reasons" - haven't it been "economical reasons" combined with "human/consumer needs" that drove our environment into the mess it is currently in?
Shouldn't we start to base our thinking on "ecological reasons"?
:-o
Just an idea...
