Electric car for the masses on the horizon? - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

usmc7011 · #46 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

Ford Nucleon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And you thought it was a joke............

I was referring to a nuke power station to power electric cars. No joking there.

BTW cool concept car, thanks for the link

goober · #47 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by usmc7011

I was referring to a nuke power station to power electric cars. No joking there.

BTW cool concept car, thanks for the link

You are of course correct, electricity doesn't have to be generated from coal, it could be generated economically and safely from nuclear power.
In the US nuclear power has been handicapped, not by environmental wackos, by by the economic reality of the system, the US requires that every nuclear plant be a brand new design, the idea being that if there is a design flaw, it will only affect one power station, this drives the cost of nuclear power far higher than it need be. In France they have standard designs and they produce 80% of their electricity from nuclear plants, so it's possible to produce economic nuclear power and to avoid the pollution from coal plants, which in addition to producing 3.5 tons of CO2 for every ton of coal burned, also emit large amounts of mercury, and BTW more radiation, in the form of radium, than nuclear plants.

What is needed is for congress and the AEC to reform the rules to make nuclear power economically viable.

It's also possible to create a nuclear fuel cycle that burns most of the heavy elements, extracting more power from a given volume of uranium, and producing a smaller volume of waste product that decays relatively quickly to a harmless state (hundreds of years versus tens of thousands of years), and leaving no fissile material that could possibly be used in the production of weapons.

Wallaroo · #48 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

You are of course correct, electricity doesn't have to be generated from coal, it could be generated economically and safely from nuclear power.
In the US nuclear power has been handicapped, not by environmental wackos, by by the economic reality of the system, the US requires that every nuclear plant be a brand new design, the idea being that if there is a design flaw, it will only affect one power station, this drives the cost of nuclear power far higher than it need be. In France they have standard designs and they produce 80% of their electricity from nuclear plants, so it's possible to produce economic nuclear power and to avoid the pollution from coal plants, which in addition to producing 3.5 tons of CO2 for every ton of coal burned, also emit large amounts of mercury, and BTW more radiation, in the form of radium, than nuclear plants.

What is needed is for congress and the AEC to reform the rules to make nuclear power economically viable.

If you wanna increase nuclear safety you could start by firing Homer Simpson!

usmc7011 · #49 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

You are of course correct, electricity doesn't have to be generated from coal, it could be generated economically and safely from nuclear power.
In the US nuclear power has been handicapped, not by environmental wackos, by by the economic reality of the system, the US requires that every nuclear plant be a brand new design

I did not know that. Jesus F-ing Christ,talk about shooting ourselves in the foot!

Anselme · #50 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by usmc7011

I did not know that. Jesus F-ing Christ,talk about shooting ourselves in the foot!

Yeah, the US could bought the third-generation of nuclear plantation called EPR, Finland, and France are the first one to build it

European Pressurized Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wallaroo · #51 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008

Interesting news:

The Israelian Project Better Place, and the danish energy giant Dong Energy, are going to launch the most ambitious electric car project the world has ever seen - in Denmark.

Quote:

Denmark signs deal to implement Israel’s electric car project

The electric vehicle (EV) project by Shai Agassi, now underway in Israel, will see electric cars on sale from next year, matched by an infrastructure of charging stations that will replace flat batteries with charged ones. Now Denmark has signed up to the plan, aiming to charge the batteries with wind power, with at least 30 more countries wanting to get on the electric bandwagon.

Shai Agassi, an Israeli technology entrepreneur that was an SAP board member from 2001 to 2007, had a dream: to deliver electric cars to the world, sold in a similar way to mobile phones and voice minutes today.

A fascinating article in the International Herald Tribune gives details on Shai Agassi and the project in Israel, which only got the go-ahead in January 2008, while Agassi’s own blog, ‘The Long Tailpipe’, gives further valuable background, including how Agassi got the support of Israel's President and Prime Minister, with the project funded by US $200m of venture capital, not by Israeli Government funds.

Using Israel as a test bed, thousands of car charging spots will be installed, as well as hundreds of battery changing stations, to help Israel massively reduce its dependence on oil, help to clean up the atmosphere, and prove to the world that electric cars and accompanying infrastructure aren’t just an impossible dream, but are fully possible with today’s technology.

The cars will be powered by lithium-ion batteries capable of delivering a 200km range of a single charge, and with the electric cars and the lithium-ion batteries manufactured by Renault-Nissan, the first cars are due to go on sale next year, with a range of models in full production due to go on sale by 2010.

More than 30 countries are already interested in replicating the project, with Denmark the first to sign a deal with Shai Agassi’s companies. These are his US company based in California called ‘Project Better Place’, alongside the Israeli holding company also is called ‘Israel Corporation’.

Denmark already produces 20% of its power through wind generation, with only 13% of that power regularly used by the Danes. The other 7% gets sold to Norway and Germany, sometimes at very cheap prices, with Agassi saying that an electric car infrastructure is the perfect place for that spare energy to go.

Much wind energy is produced at night, when temperatures are cooler. Likewise, most cars are stored in their garages at night – meaning the spare wind energy can be used to recharge an electric car fleet.

The Danish Oil and Natural Gas company, known as ‘DONG Energy’, is partnering with Project Better Place to create a new venture called Better Place Denmark, with the desire to make the EV dream a Danish reality.

Quote:

Denmark’s electric avenues

Chicken, meet egg. The classic problem with alternative vehicles—if I drive a car fueled on French fries, where do I feed it?—is beginning to resolve itself, in the form of companies like Project Better Place, which peddles infrastructure in the form of battery-recharging stations for electric cars. In January, the company announced that it would begin installing an electric recharging grid across Israel. Now Denmark is hopping on the electric bandwagon with a similar agreement.

The Danish electric car-charging network will involve thousands of charging stations built in parking lots and near homes by 2011 (the International Herald Tribune says 20,000 stations, while the Register says 500,000). In Israel, the company plans to build 500,000 stations for drivers to recharge their vehicles or swap batteries. Both countries make logical broad-scale test beds for EVs: short drives don’t push the limits of the vehicles’ batteries, and both Denmark and Israel are too small to provide anything but short distances. Most of Israel’s drivers cover about 70 kilometers a day, for example, and all its major cities are less than 150 km apart, a company press release says.

Project Better Place is partnering with Renault for the electric vehicles, Nissan Motor for its lithium-ion battery pack, and the Israeli and Danish governments, which are offering tax credits on zero-emissions vehicles.

Denmark has made unique progress in embracing alternative energy, and the EV initiative will piggyback on the Scandinavians’ established lead in wind-energy production. The country plans to use its wind-generated electricity to charge the vehicles, which will mostly be plugged in at night, when wind turbines perform their best.

Those windmills are key to Denmark’s reinvention, over the last decade, as one of the most energy-forward countries in the world. For example, Samso, a Danish island twice the size of Manhattan, is both carbon-neutral and completely energy-independent, earning it its title as an eco-wonderland. Wind is responsible for the island’s electricity, while furnaces still burn wood and some cars are still fueled by petroleum. But the island has enough offshore wind-generation capacity to ship electricity back to the mainland to more than compensate for the handful of dirty emitters that remain. At first, Samso seemed like an oddity, a one-off futurist dream made real. But maybe we should be looking at Denmark itself for proof that anything is possible.

Quote:

Renault-Nissan does Danish EV deal

Renault has announced that it is to sell electric vehicles in Europe in 2011.

The cars will initially go on sale in Denmark, where the infrastructure is better-developed to support electric vehicles and where the government will provide tax incentives for their purchase.

Renault-Nissan is working with the Israel-based initiative Project Better Place, which is to construct and operate a recharging grid across Denmark. The batteries for the cars have been developed by Nissan, which is to put its own-brand electric vehicle into production by 2010.

Renault has been considering production of an electric version of the Megane in Israel, as well as electric Kangoo MPVs and vans. The Israeli government is debating whether to make electric cars tax-free and is to give tax breaks to manufacturers.

Project Better Place, headed by tech entrepreneur Shai Agassi, intends to help nations establish an infrastructure for supplying, recharging, maintaining and supporting electric vehicles and their use, including 'battery swap' stations for instant recharging. Agassi plans to sell and lease EVs on contracts similar to those used in the mobile phone industry, with the fixed-term all-in service contracts based on the recharges and the car itself discounted or even free. Project Better Place says it is in discussions with 30 countries in Europe, the US and Asia for further programmes.

Ford, meanwhile, has announced this week that it is to run a three-year project with the Californian Electric Power Research Institute to study integration of plug-in electric hybrids into the national grid system. Tests on Escape SUV-based prototypes will be carried out in New York and New Jersey as well as the 20-strong fleet of plug-in Escape hybrids already on test in Los Angeles.

goober · #52 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

Dong Energy,

I love foreign names.

I did work for a company that was bought by The Royal Amsterdam Holding Company, who shortened that to the much snappier (they thought) "Royal Ahold", pronounced Royal A-Holed.
It gets better, a few years later I saw a story in the Wall Street Journal, apparently the Dutch were sensitive to some snickering about the name "Royal Ahold" so they changed it to "Ahold".

Almost as good as the slogan "Electrolux sucks better"

erikvv · #53 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

I love foreign names.

I did work for a company that was bought by The Royal Amsterdam Holding Company, who shortened that to the much snappier (they thought) "Royal Ahold", pronounced Royal A-Holed.
It gets better, a few years later I saw a story in the Wall Street Journal, apparently the Dutch were sensitive to some snickering about the name "Royal Ahold" so they changed it to "Ahold".

Almost as good as the slogan "Electrolux sucks better"

Ahold stands for "Albert Heijn Holdings", I worked in one of their supermarkets a few years ago.

goober · #54 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikvv

Ahold stands for "Albert Heijn Holdings", I worked in one of their supermarkets a few years ago.

A-Holed means fucked in the ass.

erikvv · #55 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

A-Holed means fucked in the ass.

Yeah i got that. I was just pointing out that there is no such thing as "The Royal Amsterdam Holding Company", it is "Royal Albert Heijn Holdings"

Wallaroo · #56 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

I love foreign names.

I did work for a company that was bought by The Royal Amsterdam Holding Company, who shortened that to the much snappier (they thought) "Royal Ahold", pronounced Royal A-Holed.
It gets better, a few years later I saw a story in the Wall Street Journal, apparently the Dutch were sensitive to some snickering about the name "Royal Ahold" so they changed it to "Ahold".

Almost as good as the slogan "Electrolux sucks better"

This is actually one of my favorite beers, because it cheap!

Speedyer · #57 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

You might have a problem selling the public on that idea. Things didn't work out so well last time they used hydrogen for flight.

Geeze, 70 years later and hydrogen is still getting a bad rap. When its been proven that out of all the theories why the Hindenburg went up in flames, the skin of the aircraft being flammable is the most reasonable. I mean your standard jet fuel is highly flammable since after all its mostly kerosene, so I doubt the flammability of the substance is enough of a reason to be against a fuel source. Though no doubt there are big problems with alternative fuels when it comes to aircraft as its much easier to produce alternative fuel sources for cars than jet aircraft.

The problem with Hydrogen.

Quote:

Another option, which has been considered for decades, is whether jetliners could run on hydrogen. Gerald Brown, a senior research engineer with NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, said it would require relatively little modification to run a regular jet engine using liquid hydrogen. The hard part is storing it on board.

Liquid hydrogen has to be stored at minus 424 degrees F (minus 253 C). While lighter, it also takes up far more space than regular jet fuel. Airplanes would have to be redesigned to accommodate it.

Also, since hydrogen occurs mainly in combination with other elements, such as water, it's costly and takes a great deal of energy to produce it.

The problem with Biofuels

Quote:

One alternative researchers are studying is biodiesel, which can be made from soybeans, corn and other products, and is used in some cars and trucks today.

A big problem, though, is that biodiesel freezes at a much higher temperature than traditional fuel, which could spell trouble in the frigid air at 35,000 feet (10,500 meters).

Scientists are working on ways to keep the fuel from freezing so readily. But even if such efforts are successful, another big issue is supply. Scientists say there just isn't enough U.S. farmland to
produce the crops needed to power jetliners, in addition to feeding people.

Researchers Seek Alternative Jet Fuel, Biodiesel, Hydrogen, Others Considered As Oil Prices Increase - CBS News

skeptic1 · #58 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speedyer

Geeze, 70 years later and hydrogen is still getting a bad rap. When its been proven that out of all the theories why the Hindenburg went up in flames, the skin of the aircraft being flammable is the most reasonable. I mean your standard jet fuel is highly flammable since after all its mostly kerosene, so I doubt the flammability of the substance is enough of a reason to be against a fuel source. Though no doubt there are big problems with alternative fuels when it comes to aircraft as its much easier to produce alternative fuel sources for cars than jet aircraft.

Because of new developments in Batteries it would seem possible in those areas where practical wind driven generators could produce electricity to charge long life batteries to allow several hundred miles of mobility with spares carried to allow return to the source of power.

goober · #59 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikvv

Yeah i got that. I was just pointing out that there is no such thing as "The Royal Amsterdam Holding Company", it is "Royal Albert Heijn Holdings"

OK, faulty memory on my part, a function of age......

Speedyer · #60 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeptic1

Because of new developments in Batteries it would seem possible in those areas where practical wind driven generators could produce electricity to charge long life batteries to allow several hundred miles of mobility with spares carried to allow return to the source of power.

I don't know, I'm skeptical. Sure its possible, but that says nothing of the costs and the potential returns if any. I mean you'd have to redesign the aircraft it self from what your saying and potentially adding hundreds of pounds to an aircraft. That being said, I think the Aircraft industry more than the car industry would welcome a cheaper alternative energy source aircraft, simply because they're at the mercy of higher fuel costs even more than consumers.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes