Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (September 2009, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:19:35 -0400
Reply-To:     mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Hydrogen cars ... a lot of hot gas!! ;)
Comments: To: joel walker <uncajoel@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=no

Well, we know how to make electric cars now. And 70 miles on a charge is more than enough to serve the needs of the vast majority of drives. What about cross country trips? Well, like most, I like my cross country trips. But, batteries WILL get better. And, we really ought to be riding cross-country in coaches pulled by TA-DA -- Diesel-ELECTRIC, or pure electric rail engines. When we get nearly to our destination, pick up the rental electric car if public transport won't get us there.

If we actually DID the things described above, we'd be able to use heavier duty vehicles when we really needed them. I might even be able to keep my camper, if I could keep it operable, and drive it about as much as I do now (it hasn't left the drive in three weeks -- but going tonight to a secret migratory bird corridor about 50 miles from home, on private land. Whee!).

Dave

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:57 PM , joel walker wrote:

>> The reason we will not have hydrogen cars is that it is too >> difficult to >> create hydrogen from electricity, and then move hydrogen from the >> place it >> is created to a car only to convert it back into electricity in the >> vehicle. It is far easier to just move electricity (and lower risk, >> and >> less cost). > > my personal feelings on the subject is that everyone is trying too > hard to move too far too fast. > > we have the replacement for gasoline already. sorta. > but nobody but chevrolet has done anything about it. sorta. > > the problem with electricity and hydrogen is infrastructure ... the > gas stations. > > with electricity, where do you fill up on a long trip? and how long > does it take? hours? > > with hydrogen, it's worse: do you REALLY want that wal-mart crowd > filling up with a > very explosive gas in your neighborhood? and before you answer that, > ask yourself the same > question about propane. it could also be used as an automobile fuel, > but we don't. wonder why? > > so, mr. smarty-mouth, you say, what should we use? and how? > > well, as i see it, we already have LOTS of gas filling stations out > there. notice they are NOT > "service stations" any longer. :( but there are lots of them. > so use them. > for alcohol. > ah, but alcohol is harder to make from corn and such. yeah, but it can > also be made from almost > any organic material, like sawdust, pulp from sugar cane/sugar > beets/etc, and even ... gasp ... > oil and methane, i think. > ;) and we already have the storage tanks in the ground, and we already > have the pumps and hoses and > collective mentality to pump a liquid into the cars. oh, and the cars > already have tanks and hoses and such. > and it burns a bit cleaner than gasoline. > it won't be any straight change-over, but it would be a lot quicker > and easier change. > and it starts the sequence of getting the minds of people away from > gasoline. > > the next part is the hard part. > > NOT using the alcohol as fuel to move the car. sorta. > use it to run a small generator in the trunk. LOTS of trunk space out > there not being used. > and use the electricity from the generator to run the electric motors > that power the car. > that's where chevy comes in ... they're the only one thinking about > building this type of > car. all the rest (hybrids) use a combo of gasoline engine and > electric motors to actually power the car. > > so why change to electric only powered by a generator? > cause it will get us into the mental frame of mind and get us > physically used to driving "electric cars". > and if, hopefully, some day the batteries and solar power or whatever > allows us to use pure electric vehicles, then we simply learn to stop > putting alcohol into the tank. :) > > so what's the advantage of an alcohol power generator running an > electric car? > range. > > if we took a small car, since most electric cars seem to be small (but > with the generator, this wouldn't necessarily have to be so), we can > get maybe 70 miles on a charge of the batteries. but if we had the > generator, which would run to power the car and charge the batteries > (batteries would still be needed to get the car moving at red lights > and stop signs, the biggest lowerers of mpg with gasoline), we could > have a greatly extended range ... 300 miles on a tank of alcohol. or > more, if we learned to build efficient generators > > there's a fellow in los angeles who does this already ... but still > uses gasoline. he changes small hondas and toyotas to electric-only > cars, and builds a small trailer with the generator on it. so if you > need to drive to Vegas, you hook up the trailer and off ya go. the > generator powers the electric motors and charges the batteries, at > highway speeds. > > and since the generator would run pretty much at a set small range of > rpm, the emission control stuff for it would be a lot simpler ... no > more rpm ranges from 900 to 4000, back to 2500, down to 1500, up to > 4000 and so on. just run along at 2000-2500 or some such. and alcohol > burns a bit cleaner than gasoline, so there should be less pollution > to deal with. > > the downside? there's always a downside. :( > > alcohol is NOT as powerful as gasoline. never has been, never will be. > so ... we learn to deal with a bit less power. > but! > since it's NOT powering the car, but only the generator that produces > the electricity, we might not even notice the power loss ... we might > all be driving Tesla sports cars! ;) and that electric car seems to be > quite powerful. > > oh, and another downside - trying to keep the wal-mart and nascar > crowd from trying to make 'torpedo juice' and drinking the stuff. :) > > would hydrogen be better as a fuel? sure. burns cleaner. has decent > power. > but much much harder to fuel the car with. > and harder to make, unless the japanese folks get the urine-hydrogen > working right. they found that it takes MUCH less electricity to > separate hydrogen from urine than from plain water. if this works, it > might be a VERY interesting future. ;) > > electricity? sure. skip the liquid steps altogether. but the storage, > just as with hydrogen, becomes a problem. > > so, like i said, maybe we should try smaller steps, but start them > sooner. > > all this pie-in-the-sky stuff is great ... except i recall all the > flying cars and robots and neat space station hotels we were supposed > to be having right now, according to all the popular science talk back > in the 1950's. > gee, somehow i must have slept right through those years. ;) > > anyway, it's a thought. that might work. now. > :) > > unca joel


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.