Future car fuel technology

DonDaddyD

OK, when I cycle I like to listen for everything. That way I can kinda anticipate what vehicle coming up behind me, the size and distance. An electric car drove past me quite close. I heard nothing and was plunged into all kinds of startled shock as I looked to my right and BAM there it was.

So, I got to thinking. Oil is running out and eventually it will be gone. Also, as we become more environmentally aware we, as a society - except Greg, are beginning to understand that oil/petrol/diesel is EVIL.

So, there is a need for more sustainable and less harmful fuel alternatives.

So, I got to thinking. Two questions really:

1). What do you think is the most viable alternative (car) fuel option?

2). What do you think the impact will be to cyclists when the roads fall silent but are still populated by motorised vehicles?

walkingbootweather

1) Hydrogen

2) We can listen to music / radio because we wouldn't have heard the vehicle anyway, right?

essex-commuter

walkingbootweather wrote:

2) We can listen to music / radio because we wouldn't have heard the vehicle anyway, right?

UndercoverElephant

1) Electricity, preferably using the batteries to sell-back energy to the grid during peak demand.
2) In the words of Easy-E: Front, back, and side to side.

Was caught by an electric scooter a few months back. I looked over my shoulder and he was in the distance at the top of the hill, next shoulder-check he was right beside me. If it had been a rainy night and he was carrying an axe, the effect would be complete.

mudcow007

+1 hydrogen with waste produce only being water an with the world heating up, what more could you ask for

essex-commuter

Battery is the first 'new' technology we will see rolled out across most of the major manufacturers.

DonDaddyD

Right so how does one buy shares in Hydrogen fuel technology?

UndercoverElephant

The problem with hydrogen, though is the fact that a) it's very, very explosive and therefore hard to store, and b) you have to put in just as much energy in order to make the hydrogen (assuming you're basically deriving it from water) as you get back from burning it.

EKE_38BPM

The same thing happened to me.
I was cycling and did a shoulder check just to see how far away cars were as the road is usually quite busy but I couldn't hear any traffic and BAM, there is a Prius (hateful cars in so many ways) just behind me. It wasn't doing anything wrong but it was there and I didn't hear it.

All 'alternative' fuels have side effects.
Plug in electric - move the source of pollution from the tail pipe to the power station
Fuel cell - resources used to produce the cell
Bio fuels - land that would/should/could be used for food production is used to produce bio-matter so food prices go up, especially in the developing world
etc

I think eventually there will be so many collisions caused by peds stepping out in front of silent electric vehicles that manufacturers will be forced to make them emit some sound, probably computer generated and emitted through an external speaker. If this is user definable, I'd choose an F1 engine from the V10 3 litre era!

CyclingBantam

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right so how does one buy shares in Hydrogen fuel technology?

Simple, what you need to do is complete a MU445P3T form that can....

...actually, seeing as it is you, just send me your name, address, DoB, Mothers maiden name, Bank Account number and sort code and a memorable 4 digit number and I will sort it all out for you.

...oh, erm, let me know how much you want to spend as well.

I guarantee, big money for you Mr.

DonDaddyD

UndercoverElephant wrote:

The problem with hydrogen, though is the fact that a) it's very, very explosive and therefore hard to store, and b) you have to put in just as much energy in order to make the hydrogen (assuming you're basically deriving it from water) as you get back from burning it.

Isn't that part of the reason it's nearly self sustainable?

davmaggs

Steam cars. We have lots of coal and we can end the silly stories about electric cars being dangerous because they are quiet.

EKE_38BPM

Chances are the batteries will be lithium based, so buy shares in a lithium mining (well, more extraction than mining) company. There are massive lithium reserves in South America (Chile and Argentina if memory serves).

UndercoverElephant

DonDaddyD wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

The problem with hydrogen, though is the fact that a) it's very, very explosive and therefore hard to store, and b) you have to put in just as much energy in order to make the hydrogen (assuming you're basically deriving it from water) as you get back from burning it.

Isn't that part of the reason it's nearly self sustainable?

In some ways good, in some ways bad. It really depends how you derive the energy for separating the hydrogen. If you're using sustainable power, then it's quite a good way to use up the excess power created when the grid doesn't demand it (something which is a pain for most renewable power), otherwise (and this is more likely, given the fact that the renewables currently don't produce enough power to be justified, let alone provide a large proportion of our needs), it's just a bit less efficient than plugging the car into the mains as you still have to transport the hydrogen to the pump via tanker, etc.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

The problem with hydrogen, though is the fact that a) it's very, very explosive and therefore hard to store, and b) you have to put in just as much energy in order to make the hydrogen (assuming you're basically deriving it from water) as you get back from burning it.

Isn't that part of the reason it's nearly self sustainable?

No. You use energy to extract the hydrogen and then you use the hydrogen to propel your vehicle. Since the process isn't 100% efficient you will always use more energy extracting the hydrogen then you get to put in your car. Add in transportation and the extra weight making a safe method of carrying the hydrogen in your car and you see why it may work for small applications, but not for the masses.

ride_whenever

You need an energy input for the hydrogen economy. The hydrogen/methanol for fuel cells is simply the energy vector as you're never going to be able to make hydrogen to run a car on without some sort of energy input.

That will come, most likely, from solar splitting of hydrogen. Either by some sort of oxide catalyst, microbes or some kind of magic. However it could also be produced by steam reforming of methane (obviously not hugely relevant in the future, but currently the most common way of generating hydrogen) or from any energy source such as renewables or nuclear.

My favourite option for cars would be nuclear.

UndercoverElephant

Good old Mr. Fusion. 8)

rick_chasey

ride_whenever wrote:

My favourite option for cars would be nuclear.

I was about to say, before I read this bit, that "this all sounds like the nuclear chat in the '50s and '60s" where you'd have nuclear powerd planes, tanks, etc.


It won't happen - nuclear stuff is too much of a hot potatoe to be given willy nilly to the general public.

Car garages would be, literally, lethal.

EKE_38BPM

ride_whenever wrote:

My favourite option for cars would be nuclear.

Didn't the Soviets have nuclear powered tractors?

DonDaddyD

ride_whenever wrote:

My favourite option for cars would be nuclear.

Yeah I play Fallout 3 as well.

OK, sounds like you need a fuel source where more energy is created than needed to sustain itself - 1 to get started, 2 to sustain itself and 3 energy byproduct - in this case power the car.

So bascially technologically we aren't there yet in regards to finding a self-sustainable and 'clean' fusion/fission energy source.

Edt: Seems that right now the most viable and intelligent - at the point of the end-user/ but maybe not at the production level - is the hybrid car. But aren't they not true hybrids in the way train diesel engines are. I.e. the fuel is used to create electricity, which powers the train?

UndercoverElephant

Rick Chasey wrote:

ride_whenever wrote:

My favourite option for cars would be nuclear.

I was about to say, before I read this bit, that "this all sounds like the nuclear chat in the '50s and '60s" where you'd have nuclear powerd planes, tanks, etc.


It won't happen - nuclear stuff is too much of a hot potatoe to be given willy nilly to the general public.

Car garages would be, literally, lethal.

Perhaps true of fission, which is a pretty uncontrolled reaction. If we're talking future technology, then it's fusion all the way, which has a chance to be much more controllable and doesn't require such nasty stuff to be used as fuel.

EKE_38BPM

You can't make energy, you can only convert it from one type of energy to another so your plan is a non-starter.
Fossil fuels are solar energy converted into chemical energy and then converted into kinetic energy by the engine.

We will never be there unless someone invents magic.

Aidy

Hydrogen in itself isn't really a sustainable fuel source (for aforementioned reasons, it depends on what energy source you're using to produce it).

Batteries aren't that great for the environment either, given the rare earth metals employed and the fairly limited lifespan.

In the short-term, I reckon biofuels are probably the winner - but yeah, there are flaws there too.

rick_chasey

I thoguht the whole issue with fusion was that it was totally uncontrolable? It's stable for a ridiculously short amount of time before going ape?

Sewinman

From the current roll out of plug in points etc the most likely solution is electric cars in the short to medium term. As we begin to decarbonise the grid to meet our carbon targets (announced today) the 'moving emissions from tail to power station' criticism will become less valid.

Re - silent cars...Maybe they will have to install a 'fake' engine sound, or have a man with a red flag running in front of the EV.

rick_chasey

The issue with "silent' cars is a joke. It'd make the whole world a better places if there wasn't that general car roar.

Aidy

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK, sounds like you need a fuel source where more energy is created than needed to sustain itself - 1 to get started, 2 to sustain itself and 3 energy byproduct - in this case power the car.

So bascially technologically we aren't there yet in regards to finding a self-sustainable and 'clean' fusion/fission energy source.

Perpetual motion machines, hey?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

You can't make energy, you can only convert it from one type of energy to another so your plan is a non-starter.
Fossil fuels are solar energy converted into chemical energy and then converted into kinetic energy by the engine.

We will never be there unless someone invents magic.

OK sorry, speed typing. Yes one Universal constant all energy is transferable and that's the way it works got that.

Also magic is just advanced tehnology we can't comprehend yet - and I read that before I watched theThor movie.

Still, it seems to me that a self sustaining fuel source would need to generate more energy than it uses.

1 get started
2 sustain itself
3 energy byproduct which would power the car

Seems to me that either sustaining itself or powering the car would need to use less energy than it generates, obviously this would be powering the car...

(Seems that right now the most viable and intelligent - at the point of the end-user/ but maybe not at the production level - is the hybrid car. But aren't they not true hybrids in the way train diesel engines are. I.e. the fuel is used to create electricity, which powers the train?)

wgwarburton

UndercoverElephant wrote:

The problem with hydrogen, though is the fact that a) it's very, very explosive and therefore hard to store, and b) you have to put in just as much energy in order to make the hydrogen (assuming you're basically deriving it from water) as you get back from burning it.

Low energy density.
Prone to leakage in storage (pressurised, very light molecules)

Fundamentally, it's an issue of energy transportation and storage. Currently, we're using energy stored millions of years ago, transporting it as high-density fuel and burning it to convert the energy to motion.
Let's assume we arn't going to run vehicles on tracks and supply the energy in real-time (like an electric train). We therefore need to store in in the vehicle. We can do this with hydrogen, but it's hard... and producing hydrogen is inefficient, as UE has highlighted above. We could use alcohol based fuels (burn or feed a fuel-cell via a converter) but we still need a way to produce sufficient alcohol/biodiesel. Biofuel currently looks like a poor use of agricultural resources, given the pressure to produce more and better food.

Battery technology is the wrong side of marginal at the moment, but it's getting there and some of the issues are being addressed proactively. If we have a viable way of producing sufficient electricity (nuclear, some renewables) and storing it (batteries for mobility, some hydro-storage, where that's possible...perhaps large scale thermal storage could be commercialised?) then maybe that could work.
It's relatively easy to imagine a transition from current hybrid and plug-in electrics to wider availability of high-output charging points and better batteries... The infrastructure is straightforward, if expensive, and improving battery capacity would allow progressively more useful vehicles.

There are quite a few engineering challenges to be overcome, as well as huge political ones, but it looks as if it could be feasible.

I guess that makes the answers to the original questions:

1) Nuclear/renewably generated electricity, stored in batteries/ultra-capacitors

2) A level playing field for deaf cyclists, and better awareness from those than arn't

Cheers,
W.

ride_whenever

DonDaddyD wrote:

ride_whenever wrote:

My favourite option for cars would be nuclear.

Yeah I play Fallout 3 as well.

OK, sounds like you need a fuel source where more energy is created than needed to sustain itself - 1 to get started, 2 to sustain itself and 3 energy byproduct - in this case power the car.

So bascially technologically we aren't there yet in regards to finding a self-sustainable and 'clean' fusion/fission energy source.

Edt: Seems that right now the most viable and intelligent - at the point of the end-user/ but maybe not at the production level - is the hybrid car. But aren't they not true hybrids in the way train diesel engines are. I.e. the fuel is used to create electricity, which powers the train?

You can't do what you're asking, see the laws of thermodynamics. There needs to be energy put into the system at some point. Hence there needs to be some underlying energy generation. Which ultimately falls down to solar, gravitational or nuclear, fossil fuels work because they're essentially solar energy accumulated over a long period of time and condensed into a very concentrated source. There'll be some sort of combination used to meet global energy needs. Nuclear fission/fusion are the most likely candidates IMO purely because of the exceptionally high efficiency required to convert the solar energy reaching the surface is a substantial barrier to solar energy meeting our needs. Even when you include the indirect means such as wind and hydrodynamic.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

Still, it seems to me that a self sustaining fuel source would need to generate more energy than it uses.

1 get started
2 sustain itself
3 energy byproduct which would power the car

THAT CANNOT HAPPEN!