Yes, Chuck, I think you're right, and given all the coverage you've done in this space, I would say you're the expert! Actually, maybe you can answer a question for me--I was just speaking with a friend who wants to get an electric engine for an SUV he has that needs a new engine (he can fix the vehicle himself). He doesn't need a long-range car, just short distances, and thinks this would be most economical. He said he heard there were engines available for purchase but I couldn't think of where. Do you know anything about this?
Charles, I really hope to offend the alcohol fuel lobby, since besides reducing mileage and adding a very convenient way to cheat by adding water, those people have also reduced the corn available for food, whichg is a very big deal for some areas. To make things worse, the news media seem determined to prevent anybody from letting the general public know about this.
Unfortunately none of the people that I voted for got elected, so what we have is the same types that we have always had.
Just like the man said a wile back, "You can't fix stupid." Offensively blunt? Probably, but also fairly correct in may areas.
I'll give you my really "iffy" opinion on pure electrics, Liz. If gasoline prices rise sufficiently, consumers will start to see the value of EVs. Even then, though, I think they'll first opt for plug-in hybrids, which are capable of solving the range problem and the initial cost problem simultaneously, because they don't need huge, expensive batteries.
Looking forward to the lithium-sulfur announcement, Chuck. And yes, you are probably right, that revolutionary technology, even when introduced, takes awhile to really gestate and have an impact. So what, then, does this mean for the future of the EV?
I wholeheartedly agree with both of you, but if we adopt something no one has seen before, brace yourself for a long wait. Battery developers tend to need time to iron out the wrinkles -- it usually takes a while to discover the potential problems, Then the automakers need to have their shot at it. Then it takes about four years to bring a car to production. Lithium-air, which is already known, may still be 15-20 years away from making it to a production vehicle. In the next four weeks, I'm expecting to hear a major announcement about lithium-sulfur, which could be good news for automakers over the next 10-15 years.
All the battery breakthroughs bandied about have been evolutionary in nature. The solution here is going to take a revolution. Something that is not simply experimenting with different chemistries.
I agree with you totally on this, TJ. There is a lot of good research going on in this area but I think the real breakthrough will indeed come with something no one has even seen before, something--as you mention--that will be revolutionary and possibly even mind-blowing, not the next step for some current or traditional battery chemistry.
Charles, one interesting fact is that the miles per gallon of every gas-engined car and truck would rise a bit if we got rid of that ten percent ethanol addition. Not only does the ethanol deliver less energy per unit of volume, but it also allows the addition of a few percent of water into the gas with the only easy to spot difference being poorer mileage. And it is not that simple to detect 3% or even 5% water mixed in with the alcohol. And I can buy my water a lot cheaper than $3.50 per gallon.
For the very reason that you point out, William K, you'd have a problem getting consumers to buy into the removable engine-alternator package. Yes, many consumers do have trouble changing a light bulb. Also, I agree with your assessment of hybrids. Honda is coming out with a 50-mpg Accord this month and Toyota is working on a 55-mpg Prius. The numbers just keep going up.
I simply agree to what you narrated, specially in the region where we see lot of traffic jam, it wont function more appropriately, adding hybrid charging with any other medium be fruitful, like solar for regions having sun for long time.
Although plastics make up only about 11% of all US municipal solid waste, many are actually more energy-dense than coal. Converting these non-recycled plastics into energy with existing technologies could reduce US coal consumption, as well as boost domestic energy reserves, says a new study.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.