Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KvP]

So hybrids have been pretty popular lately, and the price of gas has everyone worried and we're all concerned about dependency on oil and all the problems that entails and yadda yadda yadda.

Anyway, you may have noticed during the Olympics coverage that there's been a fair number of GM ads touting the Chevy Volt, a new concept car. Basically the spiel is thus - whereas hybrids these days are gas-powered but use a battery to augment gas mileage, the Volt is a "plug-in" car. It's a hybrid just like the Prius, but the difference is that the combustion engine powers the battery. You get a good 40 miles out of an overnight charge, and during that time no gasoline is burnt. After that 40 miles the motor starts up and you'll get a good 40 miles per gallon from there on in. The thing is, most people don't travel more than 40 miles in a day.

If it happens (optimistically, it's out by 2010) it'll be pretty huge, or at least as huge as a car that likely will cost a lot of money can be. GM came out with a fully battery-operated car years ago, and those of you familiar with the fantastic documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? (if you haven't seen it, do so) will remember how that turned out. But as outlined in this pretty good Atlantic article, GM is pretty desperate these days. They ignored the hybrid market in its infancy and got thoroughly shamed by Toyota. Their acquisition and promotion of the Hummer (with Jimmy Fallon, no less) was the cherry on top of years of blunders and loss of consumer confidence. So maybe they're just desperate enough to actually try this, and perhaps kick start a new phase of progress in the automotive industry. Like the article says, Apple was in a bad way before the Ipod and it rejuvenated the entire company. GM, being in worse shape than Apple ever was, wants to make that kind of impact.

Or maybe it's all smoke, like this guy assumes. There are a lot of maybes with this. The kind of lithium-ion batteries needed to run these cars are thoroughly untested and pretty much entirely theoretical at this point. They don't know how long they'll last. They don't know how much they'll cost. They're being invented at the same time the car is being developed. Toyota's on record as saying they don't think it can be done.

So do you think this car (or something like it) is something we'll see? Will it have any sort of effect on the marketplace, or the way that we drive and consume energy? Or is it just technological optimism, a belief that in theory we can solve our problems with some new breakthrough in the future? Or is it going to be the new Segway, a breathlessly awaited gadget that ultimately lands with a thud? I'd like to think it's a real thing that's going to happen and the auto industry will eventually tip this way in a big and permanent way, but... 2010 seems pretty damn liberal as an estimate for that sort of thing. I'd give it a few more years than that.

The title of the thread says "other plug-in cars" but I'm not aware of any, other than conventional hybrids. If anyone could provide info on any I'd appreciate it personally, and I'm sure more reading will be beneficial to others.

[Vendetagainst]

Most conceptual machines like this are already established on a scientific level but may not be feasible as a marketable product.
that being said, the Voltaic cell has been around for a long freaking time, there's no reason why this hasn't already been done successfully. But keep in mind that just because there are not any CO₂ emissions does not mean that is going to be more environmentally friendly than conventional engines. I think a solar cell combined with a conventional battery would hold a lot of potential, however. Replacing gasoline with a cleaner burning fuel (methane supplied with an oxidant, for example) would be a good start too.

[nobo]

If we truly want to end our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels this is the way to go.

The problem with electric cars is that they need to be plugged in and charged by means of the conventional power grid. The U.S., being a country with massive coal reserves, would have to pollute extra hard to make sure all the new electric cars are charged... unless we switch our power grid over to nuclear, which is virtually emission free. Now, the only arguments against nuclear are safety and disposal. Believe it or not, but the regulations that you have to follow to operate a nuclear plant are so extreme that its nearly impossible to cause a meltdown. As for disposal, the average person can live their whole life being powered by nuclear and produce a "nuclear footprint" the size of a soda can. Or, we can pursue the fast reactor technology that was abandoned in the 50's or so. Click here for more info about fast reactors. The cool thing about fast reactors is that they run on spent nuclear fuel, which means you can close the fuel cycle and virtually eliminate nuclear waste.

That said, I think electric cars are a neat idea. The only problem I see with them is that American infrastructure isn't really ready to handle them. What if you're taking a long trip? these cars run out of battery power after about 150 miles. Or what if you live in a condo? how are you going to hook up and charge your car?

[Vendetagainst]

What if you're taking a long trip?

Spare batteries.

Or what if you live in a condo?

Portable charger

[öde]

The only problem I see with them is that American infrastructure isn't really ready to handle them.

There will have to be a change, but it can be gradual (although Sweden managed to switch the side of the road people drive on practically overnight). The rate at which the developed world advances means we'll have to get used to making changes like this anyway. The WWW was invented in 1989 and we've come from using 56k telephone wires to fibre optic cables that can handle gigabytes a second, and more. They already have some recharging places in San Francisco for electric cars, there's no reason they can't be introduced to other cities.

the only arguments against nuclear are safety and disposal.

My main problem with nuclear power plants is how many of them irradiate the cooling water and surrounding environment. And dispite extreme regulations, worrying things happen.

And as for going on long trips in electric cars, at the moment the best option, ironically, is to take a petrol/diesel generator trailer.

[nobo]

I'll have to look into how the feedwater is returned to nature, but I was fairly certain that it did not come out irradiated.

As for accidents. The number of people that have died from faulty nuclear reactors is extremely small compared to the amount of people that have died from coal mines and oil drilling rigs.

[Inlander]

The problem with Nuclear Power, though, is not so much the risk of accidents, as the fact that on those very rare occasions when accidents do happen, the damage they can do to the surrounding environment is exponentially worse and longer-lasting than the damage caused by accidents from other kinds of power plants.

I mean, if a coal power plant explodes, we're not going to have cancer spikes in the surrounding area generations after the fact.

[nobo]

You're right, but thats why the newer plants being designed have multiple back up safety features.  Other than Chernobyl there haven't been any big nuclear power plant accidents that have resulted in death, and even Chernobyl's death count is only at 56. Granted that is a Soviet count, but its still much smaller than you'd imagine.

[Vendetagainst]

The damage done at Chernobyl FAR surpassed the death toll.

[est]

There is a dead-zone around the area called the "Zone of Alienation".  Wiki says it's a 30km exclusion zone, but I am not sure if that means 30km radius or diameter.  Either way that is a big patch of land that has been rendered unusable.

Also, mining for the fuel for said nuclear reactors is usually done by really really dirty methods.

[Vendetagainst]

Yellowcaking!

[nobo]

In some ways it has. However, the area has been mostly reclaimed by nature. And animals that were long gone to the area have begun to flourish because of the absence of people. The fallout decayed before it could reach groundwater. I think its a place that will eventually return back to normal. Its a shame this happened in the U.S.S.R where people were expendable.

[Vendetagainst]

Enormous amounts of radioactive "lava" still remain buried beneath the plant though, with no way of removing them and no idea on how long they will remain contained.

[est]

The area being "reclaimed by nature" doesn't really mean much.  Nature is fucking stupid.  Animals will go back into a radioactive zone but that doesn't mean it's safe to do so.  And it becoming usable again some day doesn't change that the area's been unusable for over 20 years and killed a bunch of people.

Also, electric/hybrid cars are a pretty cool idea but what are we going to beef up our electricity infrastructure with once everyone is charging their cars every night?  Aren't most plants coal or oil burning anyway?

[ViolentDove]

Or maybe it's all smoke, like this guy assumes. There are a lot of maybes with this. The kind of lithium-ion batteries needed to run these cars are thoroughly untested and pretty much entirely theoretical at this point. They don't know how long they'll last. They don't know how much they'll cost. They're being invented at the same time the car is being developed. Toyota's on record as saying they don't think it can be done.

Apparently existing hybrid cars can be converted to plug-in, without the need for more advanced batteries. Here is an article describing the process.

However!

As pointed out already, you'd need a source of electricity other than coal, otherwise it's not really solving much.

I'm of the opinion that biodiesel is the way to go. Biodiesel allows current diesel model cars to be used with very small conversion costs (i think it's a few new filters, and that's about it), rather than buying a whole new car. The algal bio-reactors thing was brought up here recently, and I still think it's got a lot of potential. Firstly, the algal cultures can be used to recycle CO2 emissions from power plants and such, and secondly, oils can be extracted from the algae, with yields a factor of ten over current oil and ethanol crops. And, because it's cutured in closed tanks on industrial land, you're not competing with food crops for space on fertile land.

[ViolentDove]

Also, re: chernobyl, they found a fungus there that eats radiation.

IT EATS FUCKING RADIATION.

article here

[nobo]

Well, the area has been reclaimed by nature, and there are no observable defects in the animals. They have lived there 22 generations since the accident and are doing just fine.  And the area wasn't unusable. In fact, the remaining reactors at Chernobyl kept running up until it was finally completely shut down in 2000. 

When it comes to electricity it breaks down as follows
Coal - 56%
Nuclear - 22%
Natural Gas - 9%
Hydroelectric - 9%
Oil - 3 %
Biodiesel < 1%
source

The U.S. has enormous coal reserves, so I don't see that going away as the chief source of electricity. Solar and wind power could potentially make up 10-20% of the grid eventually, but they can only give supplemental power. They can't be depended on for a base electrical output. Most of our oil goes towards transportation. Moving stuff by truck or boat burns a lot of oil.

To change the topic a bit.  Did you know they experimented with nuclear powered air planes? The main road block they ended up running into was that the amount of lead needed to protect the pilot from contamination weighed the plane down so it couldn't fly. If we can find a lighter lead substitute, we may get nuclear powered air travel.

[Leinad]

nuclear powered air travel.

This is seriously hot right there.

[Nodaisho]

I'm personally interested in fusion power, it seems to be about the closest thing we can get to an inexhaustible supply, unless we can convert stupidity to energy. Using two isotopes of hydrogen, the most plentiful element, this is what stars do, isn't it? I distinctly remember hearing that the sun burns hydrogen. The current problem is making a strong enough container.

The accidents in Japan largely consisted of the plants being run even after problems were found, or when problems weren't found because they didn't inspect everything as closely as they should. The earthquake is an exception, I would say that it would likely be better for plants to be built where there aren't likely natural disasters, or built to withstand those disasters without damaging the reactor.

I have heard that chernobyl was caused by an experiment, which for some reason involved removing all the safeguards, I haven't studied to find any confirmation, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Vendetagainst]

stars are basically just massive nuclear reactors, they don't actually "burn" hydrogen, they convert it into helium (and then into larger atoms) through nuclear fusion.

As for Chernobyl, this is a Wikipedia article but is quite thorough, considering.

[nobo]

You are right on both accounts.

Chernobyl happened because of an experiment. The problem is that the experiment wasn't completed in one shift, and the second shift of workers that came in and relieved the first did not know what was going on.

And when it comes to reactors, each one is designed for its specific "seismic" zone. So the ones built on the fault lines of Japan are built to specifications of surviving huge quakes. Remember how China had that huge earthquake a month or so ago? They had 2 nuke plants in that region that sustained no damage.

The only thing I know about nuclear fusion comes from the move "the saint" with Val Kilmer.

[est]

The only thing I know about nuclear fusion comes from the movie "Back to the Future" with Michael J Fox

[Verergoca]

Ok, first: on the topic of nuclear aircraft, look no further than the Convair X-6.

Also, the way i see it, nuclear powerplants are a quite good interim solution until we figure the fusion thing out. Provided ofcourse adequate safety and storage measures are taken...

Also, on the topic of leaking reactors, iirc, they all use a closed circuit waterflow, with the intake water beeing water that gets led past a section that places it right next to the "bad" water, thus cooling it (basically, just like any heatsink/airexchange-that-your-lungs-have-been-doing-since-you-were-born) A leak in this wall is ofcourse possible, which i think is what happened recently in france.

Also, i need coffee

[Nodaisho]

The only thing I know about nuclear fusion comes from the movie "Back to the Future" with Michael J Fox

That was fission, he used plutonium, fusion uses deuterium and tritium for the most part.

What little I know of fusion comes from reading about ITER on wikipedia. I do have a cool book on atomic energy, though, my grandfather had it, he was drafted to work on the Manhattan project and was very hopeful that some of the work he had done would be used for non-killing purposes.

[est]

The end of BTTF, where the car now flies and is powered by "Mr Fusion" where you put bunches of garbage into it and it uses it for fusion reactions somehow.

[est]

In your facccccccccccccccce

[onewheelwizzard]

I'd say that if you take the risk/benefit factors of nuclear power into account, it looks safe enough to use.

I mean, the damage done by a meltdown is pretty terrifying, but if you zoom out from the area of land that a meltdown would destroy and for that matter the impact it would have over time, and you look at how small that footprint is compared to the area of land that it would provide power for, comparing the negative impact of a meltdown to the positive impact of building the reactor is a bit like comparing the negative impact of breaking your ankle or leg to the positive impact of running every day to keep in shape.  The damage done by a meltdown can be cripplingly severe, but it is relatively localized, and if we choose our reactor sites wisely (i.e. not near large bodies of running water, not on any animal migration routes, etc.) we can keep it that way, more or less.  And when you compare the damage *maybe* done by a meltdown to the damage *definitely* done over time by a strip mine excavation or a drilling and refining project, not to mention the result of actually burning all that stuff, nuclear power seems like a really nice alternative to fossil fuels even taking into consideration the full extent of the risk.

[0bsessions]

Concerning the main subject of the thread, this is actually something that's been kicked around for a little while.

This sounds to me like GM actually bought and co-opted AFS Trinity's "extreme hybrid," which was essentially a standard Saturn Vue modified with an off the shelf developed (Made entirely with shit pretty much anyone can make) lithium ion battery pack (Which reduced overheating risks). The concept was initially produced in an SUV, meaning the translation to a sedan would be even more phenomenal.

It's not theoretical or anything, it's been produced and it works. It was covered by more than a few news agencies a few months back and it is a working technology, though it is still in prototype stages, last I checked.

If the US were to finagle their infrastructure a good bit, this could make a viable stopgap measure until a more permanent solution to dependency upon finite resources is found. The primary risk is the idea that the government could get complacent and just ignore the problem again entirely until we're once again in a crisis.

[IronOxide]

The thing about nuclear power, for me at least, has absolutely nothing to do with safety. Fuck safety.

The biggest risk with shifting to nuclear power is falling back into the same games we're stuck in right now. Uranium, as of right now, can only be considered a stop-gap at the most optimistic. There is already a significant gap between supply and demand for Uranium, meaning that we are consuming 51 million more kilograms than we are producing, quickly consuming our stockpiles in a non-sustainable manner. The most optimistic of the realistic predictions of peak uranium says we have about 270 years left at current consumption if we discover all of the Uranium in the world and rip it out of the ground. The potential life of Uranium deposits would greatly increase if we were to replace all conventional reactors with fast-breeder reactors, which won't stay open because they are not economically viable. We can add this to the list of all of the things that were not developed until far too late or never developed because they were not economically viable, like hybrid cars, electric cars, 'clean coal' processes, recycling, solar farms, wind farms, and many others.


The fact of the matter is that until something becomes cheap enough to pay for itself, the processes will not be developed until we have already drained the resources that it could conserve.

[Ozymandias]

I don't think Christopher Lloyd is the best person to get your science from.

We should've been able to turn on light bulbs by sticking them in our mouths years ago if he were.

[Dimmukane]

In the vein of things that could power your car when it's plugged into the wall...I present a probable hoax.

In regards to solar power, panels are getting cheaper and cheaper to produce, and a way to store solar power has been found (whether or not it's economically viable remains to be seen).

And as far as nuclear plants go, I don't see why we can't just put them in somewhat remote/uninhabited locations...there's tons of deserts and plains around the world we could stick one on the edge of (so as not to create an upheaval in the local ecosystems).

[nobo]

There is no real way to store energy. Even capacitors and flywheels are terribly inefficient.

When it comes to the desert, thats an ecosystem all to itself.and most deserts are pretty remote, and transporting that energy over large distances isn't very efficient.

[Johnny C]

Also, re: chernobyl, they found a fungus there that eats radiation.

IT EATS FUCKING RADIATION.

article here

Yeah. Combine that with cordyceps and congratulations you have one absolutely terrifying fungus.

[Trollstormur]

War. War never changes.

[Vendetagainst]

sure it does! We get better at it.

[ViolentDove]

Man, if I could study radiation-eating parasitic fungi capable of controlling host behaviour, I'd be able to die a happy man*.

When it comes to the desert, thats an ecosystem all to itself.and most deserts are pretty remote, and transporting that energy over large distances isn't very efficient.

This is true!

You'd be displacing the habitat of these guys, for example:



Awwww.


*This would either be because a) I'm a nerdy scientist with an interest in mycology, or b) the fungus has woven its thought controlling hyphae throughout my brain. Who knows!



 

[Dimmukane]

There is no real way to store energy. Even capacitors and flywheels are terribly inefficient.

When it comes to the desert, thats an ecosystem all to itself.and most deserts are pretty remote, and transporting that energy over large distances isn't very efficient.

It had less to do with capacitors and more to do with hydrogen and oxygen made from the photovoltaic cells...I can't remember the details (Here is a page describing the process).

I didn't mean full on, in the desert, either, I meant on the edge of it, going perhaps no more than a half mile in.  As far as being economically efficient, I've got nothing to counter.  We could bring back the giant Tesla Coil, perhaps...

[Ozymandias]

I'm wondering where you got the idea that ecosystems have definable borders where there is no actual ecosystem.

[Dimmukane]

I mean that you find a town that can be reasonably called on the border of a desert (within a few miles drive from where the dry place starts) and build it somewhere in between the two.  I'm not saying the ecosystems have borders, I meant the geographical edge.  There would probably be the location that would least impact the ecosystems in question.


Guys, please get off my back about this.  I wasn't all that serious about it in the first place.

[RedLion]

There is no real way to store energy. Even capacitors and flywheels are terribly inefficient.

When it comes to the desert, thats an ecosystem all to itself.and most deserts are pretty remote, and transporting that energy over large distances isn't very efficient.

It had less to do with capacitors and more to do with hydrogen and oxygen made from the photovoltaic cells...I can't remember the details (Here is a page describing the process).

Yeah, I've heard the same thing--there's been some startling advances in solar technology just in the last few months. A guy figured out how to make windows out of solar material, so that light passes through it but the energy is absorbed by the window or some shit. I have no idea how it works. And then like Dimmukane said, it recently came out that someone's worked out storing solar energy. It has something to do with photosynthesis in plants. Again, I have no grasp of the basic scientific principles behind it. But I think people don't look at solar hard enough. They tend to write it off as not feasible on a grand scale. And maybe it's not. But I think there's real potential there with this new technology and as more is developed.

[ViolentDove]

Also, some Aussie PhD student has developed a process for making solar cells with an inkjet printer and a pizza oven. The idea was basically to make the cost of manufacturing solar cells ridiculously low, so they could be used in developing countries much more easily.

[Nodaisho]

War. War never changes.

You're right, just ask the Cathar Air Force.

Wait, isn't the light the energy? Or is it the heat? it would also be effective in cooling down houses during the summer if it was heat, sun comes through the window, but no extra heat. Cats would be pissed, though, taking away their sunning grounds.

[nobo]

It had less to do with capacitors and more to do with hydrogen and oxygen made from the photovoltaic cells...I can't remember the details (Here is a page describing the process).

From what I understand, photovoltaic cells are just advanced batteries. The problem with batteries, or any sort of sort of power generation is the terrible inefficiency. Take coal for example, I think you get only 20-30% of its energy, you lose a bunch because it takes energy to power the processes, and you get losses between each process, and if you add making batteries to the list, then its barely worth it.

also, when it comes to solar and wind, those things are great when it comes to supplementing power, but they cannot be relied on for a continuous base load. they depend too much on external factors, like weather.  you would need a larger power plant to supply a constant amount, and then get the rest from supplementary sources.

Now, they have been doing some cool stuff in England with using tides, currents and waves as a source of energy.

[tommydski]

I was in a hospital waiting room today and as per usual there was the usual selection of celebrity gossip rags or car magazines so i chose the latter to peruse for a few moments. In it there was a brief article about an electric car called a Tango. It seemed pretty impressive and the article was making a lot of noise about the fact that it could do 0-60mph in just four seconds (that is amazing for any road car, let alone an electric one). Also, the fact that George Clooney owns one -



Though I notice it doesn't say that he drives one, just that he owns it. Anyhow, the article made a claim which actually had me pretty astounded for a few seconds. It seemed to be suggesting that it could travel the distance an ordinary car could travel in twenty minutes in just twenty seconds. The calculations arising in my brain were thoroughly confusing and it took me a few moments to realise that there was a qualifier written in small print below which stated - "in heavy traffic".

I can't help but think that maybe people who make electric cars should just make the damn things look as much like regular cars as they can. The Tango seems conceptually brilliant but I wouldn't want to be seen in public in the damn thing just because I don't like drawing that much attention to myself for any reason. Especially not something as ridiculous as the car I'm driving.

[KharBevNor]

Yeah but Tommy, electric motors generate shitty torque, so either you have to have a tiny zippy little car, or an enormous car with a two metre fly-wheel on top.

[Chesire Cat]

Battery operated electric cars just dont seem prudent what with a good deal of electricity coming from coal or damming up water.  One is a fossil fuel the other has huge environmental impacts.

Lets here it for the Fuel Cell vehicles instead.  Performance wise they are alot punchier than alot of electric cars, they dont have potentially harmful to the environment batteries, and dont need vast amounts of electricity to power.

Though the Volt is pretty.

[Nodaisho]

Khar, they claim that the tango (assumedly the highest-end one, costing more than a Porsche 997 GT3) has 1000 ftlbs of torque, which seems like an exercise in overkill, especially considering that the range isn't nearly enough to be used as a recreational car, just a commuter car.

They advertise that four can fit in one parallel parking spot, but here is what I wonder: who wants that? I assume that they are double-parking, though I suppose they could be saying something along the lines of "It has an inch between the bumpers, what, can't you get out of that?"

[fatty]

This is a good debate. It amazes me, the diverse opinions on green design and sustainability out there. I will contribute soon.

[jhocking]

They advertise that four can fit in one parallel parking spot, but here is what I wonder: who wants that? I assume that they are double-parking, though I suppose they could be saying something along the lines of "It has an inch between the bumpers, what, can't you get out of that?"

Maybe they mean 4 side by side backed against the curb? The thing's so short that might be legal.

[Nodaisho]

That's a thought. I wonder what kind of legroom it has, I am not all that tall (6'1), but I have long legs, and the farthest back the seat can go in the family minivan is an inch or two less than I would like. Seems like something that short would have issues there.