|
|
03-14-2009, 02:55 PM
|
#21
|
2 Rivet Member
1999 30' Limited
Port Perry
, Ontario
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 41
|
Zen Motors http://www.zenncars.com/is a Canadian Electric Car company, they are partnered with EEstor who has developed the ultra-capacitor technology. Zen announced a new CityZen model out later this year with the capability to charge in 5 minutes and range of 400 kilometres on a single charge. I think this technology will advance rapidly now there is some support behind it ... It seems the electric truck could be the ideal tow vehicle - as someone pointed out that our North American trains are electric (the diesel motors just power the generators) ....
|
|
|
03-14-2009, 05:37 PM
|
#22
|
Master of Universe
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction
, Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,711
|
So, how does the ultra capacitor work? I checked the Zenn website, but it doesn't really describe it.
I vaguely remember simple radio capacitors, vacuum tubes, superhetrodyne circuits, and things like that, but by the time transistors got common, I moved on. How can this thing store a monster charge, and then let it out in small enough amounts not to blow the motor across the state?
Are the big car companies looking at this? I can understand GM not doing anything that is in any way new, but I'd think the Japanese companies would be checking it out.
Another use: Could an ultra capacitor be also used for a particle beam weapon? For example, when traffic is in the way, a blast could clear the road. And if you need more volts, just raise the pantograph to the nearest power lines and charge up.
Gene
|
|
|
03-15-2009, 05:41 AM
|
#23
|
"Cloudsplitter"
2003 25' Classic
Houstatlantavegas
, Malebolgia
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 20,000
|
Gene, are you running with your Shields up?
__________________
Im done with adulting
Lets go find Bigfoot.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 12:12 AM
|
#24
|
4 Rivet Member
2005 30' Land Yacht 30 SL
Castro Valley
, California
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 425
|
A short thanks to the contributors--its nice to read a reasoned discussion on a topic that often brings out zealots on either side.
BMW has already shown a prototype X3 with ultracapacitors and it is expected a similar tachnology will be on the X5 in 2010--there's a large cap order from a "...German automaker." The hybrid design in use today in the Cadillac Escalade and ohter GM vehicles was co-developed by GM, Chrysler and BMW--except BMW has not offered it to the market yet.
I have not dived in to the technology deeply yet--I think the ultracaps don't have enough energy density for an all-electric vehicle yet.
Yes, the power plants pollute but the theory is that it is easier to control the pollution on fewer large power plants than on many vehicles that will have careless maintenence. I agree--its a good theory; it will be interesting if it actually happens.
(OT, a similar theory is getting the opposite approach: in an effort to reduce gasoline vapors when refueling there is a next step effort beyond the vapor recovery nozzles we have here in the SanFran area. There was a lot of discussion about upgrading those pumps, but the new goal seems to be adding more expensive complex vapor sucking and storage to the vehicles. Pretty dumb, IMO, but that way the oil companies do not have to pay.)
So what do I do with the NiMH batteries in my Honda Insight toad when they need replacing? I'm not supposed to throw batteries of any size in the landfill now, and my company has battery collection boxes that we mail away to remove that pollutant. I think a big pile of NiMH or Li-ion or similar will have recycle value just like lead acid does today.
So, just as I don't drive my TerraYacht to work every day I don't use the Insight to haul a trailer or a bunch of passengers. The city car rental on demand companies are doing well here too, especially in SanFran where parking is almost non existent, and some neighbors rent large cars when they have to haul a lot of people or stuff.
Different solutions for different needs--my contractor friends still need a real pickup truck. Every day, all day.
Tesla's offices are about 4 miles from my office and they are struglling a little, but still in business, delivering electric sports cars. I'm not sure thier business model is realistic to build a car that I can afford, but an economical car for just local jaunts with about 200 miles range would meet most of my weekday needs.
www.betterplace.com concept has easily exchangeable battery packs, so, if your charge is low, you just drive in to a service location and they swap it for a fully charged one. You would own the car, lease the battery pack or access to them. This is a new, interesting business model, could even enable long trips in the electric vehicle where you pull off the highway, swap batteries, echange fluids with some fresh coffeee intake, and continue on. Not promising for towing a bullet, but maybe feasible for a Class B, Sprinter-like rig.
Its really great to see lots of ideas with similar goals, and hopefully the market will have enough cash to develop many of them and then sort out what works.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 06:23 AM
|
#25
|
Rivet Master
2006 25' Safari FB SE
Currently Looking...
Durango
, Colorado
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,112
|
Honest question....Will the proposed cap and trade environmental laws hinder progress on plug in hybrids due to increased energy costs.
"Yes, the power plants pollute but the theory is that it is easier to control the pollution on fewer large power plants than on many vehicles that will have careless maintenence. I agree--its a good theory; it will be interesting if it actually happens."
The problem here is that every time a coal-fired plant in the southwest retro fits scrubbers at great expense, there is demand for even more controls that drive up energy costs.
Perhaps some one smarter than I can explain why hydro and nuculeur(sp?) seem to be off the table in alternative energy discussions.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 07:35 AM
|
#26
|
Aluminut
2004 25' Safari
.
, Illinois
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,477
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denis4x4
Perhaps some one smarter than I can explain why hydro and nuculeur(sp?) seem to be off the table in alternative energy discussions.
|
Because the bleeding heart tree huggers have it that dams are bad...and they can be, if built with the old school of thinking, but there are environmental ways of doing it, just costs money and the almighty dollar has the final say. A more eco friendly dam drives up the cost per kwh. You can't build dams the size of Hoover everywhere, which means that you'd have to dam up many areas to generate sufficient energy. They are however a renewable source of energy and most operational lifespans of maintained dams can be a hundred years or so. For example, some of the dams in the U.P. of MI run by Wisconsin Power were built in the 30s and 40s. They have upgraded and done some repairs, but these babies are there to stay until someone yanks them out. The concrete is stronger now than it was right after it was poured.
Nuclear is a left wingers nightmare....you can't say it around them and if you do thoughts of 3 mile island and Chernobyl pop up (which mind you weren't great events to happen). The issue with Nuclear is several fold.
First the plants are god awful expensive to build, and take roughly about 8-10 years to build and have an operational lifespan of about 30 years (extended via NRC licensing).
Second, power is infinite with it, but it is again expensive to make, buy, install and change out the fuel, of which the fuel itself is not renewable anyway. Like oil, there is just so much of this stuff out there.
Last reason Nuclear is a lame duck (not that I believe it should be) is that there are no really great solutions about storing the spent waste. Currently Yucca Mountain has received billions of dollars in construction and development. It is from what I understand in litigation and may never be operational. So what does that mean? Well, it means that the pools at the reactors are full, it means that they are now storing all these spent fuel rods outside in vertical casket type devices....and as the use continues, these multiply.
Of course even if Yucca Mountain was not an issue, the left wing media screams and dramatizes the fact that the spent fuel rods will be on trains and trucks that will cross near almost every single town (basic fear mongering). IMHO, yes there is inherent danger in just about anything we do, but is it worse to have large quantities parked in one place at each reactor? For example, we have a nuke here in northern Illinois, it's the Zion Generating Station off Lake Michigan. It was found to be too costly to replace the steam generator assemblies so they mothballed the plant as it goes through a 15-20 year decommissioning where the whole thing eventually will be going away....and guess what, they will ship the radioactive parts meaning they will still be transported. The plant was built in the 50s. What happens to Lake Michigan if there is a casket leak or the spent fuel rod pool develops an issue? Is that any safer than transporting the stuff to Yucca?
One interesting bit is that there have been few to no new licenses applied for to build new nukes, which again have a build out time of 8 to 10 years and the nations current nuclear fleet of power stations only designed for 30-40 year operational lifespans, far more than half the reactors on line today were built between the 50s and the 70s. That puts us in a very precarious situation because these plants will either need major overhauling or decommissioning before any new similar plants are even near completion, let alone anyone even coming close to saying "sure, let's build one"...and in this current economic crisis, I doubt seriously anyone would fund it.
In a sentence, there are no good reasons these two are totally off the table IMHO.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 08:59 AM
|
#27
|
Aluminut
2004 25' Safari
.
, Illinois
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,477
|
Everything you wanted to know about Nuclear Power:
Nuclear Power in the USA
Also, keep in mind that although they claim a 4 year construction time frame, it has been historically a longer process due to communities being very reluctant to have these in their back yards. Back yards meaning in town or even 50 miles away. Many places added years of litigation, however, in this economy if the feds gives loan guarantees, the state, county and local governments are in such a cash crunch who really knows. Plants cost money to build and operate, which = jobs and tax revenue.
Heck we camped next to the Zion plant in the 80s at the State Park for weeks at a time and I turned out ok, even swam in Lake Michigan next to it's water cooling lines....never mind that twitch I have all the time.
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 11:30 AM
|
#28
|
Master of Universe
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction
, Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,711
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denis4x4
Perhaps some one smarter than I can explain why hydro and nuculeur(sp?) seem to be off the table in alternative energy discussions.
|
Well, I don't know about smarter, but here's my take on hydro. Dam up a river or stream, and the silt stays behind the dam. The water coming out the other side flows faster without silt and causes erosion. The silt maintains sand bars and river banks maintaining an equilibrium and you have a healthy river and ecosystem and less damaging floods (some floods start below the dam; some overtop the dam). Maybe the water behind the dam could be automatically agitated to send the same amount of silt downstream, but that's my speculation. Eventually the reservoir will fill up with silt and have to be dredged, a big expense. Fish that return to their spawning grounds cannot easily get back even with fish ladders and salmon populations are crashing in the NW partly because of dams and partly because of overfishing.
Microgenerators on small creeks and irrigation ditches could power a house, however. Some people are doing this now. A microgenerator can be had for around $1-2K per KW I think. Aspen Ski Corp. is using one or more on a creek on one of their ski mountains. I don't think they use a dam, but just focus the flow through the turbine.
As for the nuclear, no one wants that stuff in their state. Congress knows if they decommission Yucca Mtn., it has to go somewhere else, and no one wants nuclear waste in their state, so Congress does nothing. Yucca Mtn. has fault lines and water drains through it a lot faster than anyone thought when it was suggested decades ago. I don't know how you find a place where you can store stuff that is so dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years and expect it to remain safe. Maybe we can store it at Yellowstone and when the supervolcano blows in somewhere between next month and 100,000+ years, all that stuff will be distributed all over the planet, causing mutations that will enable us to figure out what to do with nuclear waste (do not try this at home).
Gene
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 12:37 PM
|
#29
|
Rivet Master
Currently Looking...
Mantua
, Ohio
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,062
|
They are in the process of building a new nuke plant near Crystal River Fl. I believe this is correct. jim
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 12:50 PM
|
#30
|
Aluminut
2004 25' Safari
.
, Illinois
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,477
|
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 12:56 PM
|
#31
|
Aluminut
2004 25' Safari
.
, Illinois
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,477
|
|
|
|
03-16-2009, 01:31 PM
|
#32
|
4 Rivet Member
2005 30' Land Yacht 30 SL
Castro Valley
, California
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 425
|
Note that no one has discussed the "problem" of where and how to get the raw material to make the nuclear fuel: mine tailings have created a challenge almost as big as spent fuel.
A reference to improved Li battery performance jsut came in today: MIT has a method to decrease charge times, extend battery life, although it isn't immediatly applicable to vehicles: Technology Review: Ultra-High-Power Lithium-Ion Batteries is a report of some of the research.
|
|
|
09-24-2009, 04:00 PM
|
#33
|
Liquid Cooled
2017 27' Flying Cloud
Currently Looking...
Currently Looking...
Currently Looking...
near Indy
, Indiana
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 745
|
On a belated, related note.
Battery maker A123 (ticker AONE - disclosure: I have zero connection to them), founded by MIT grads, went public today. This is significant in a couple respects.
First, it's a domestic company competing with LG of Korea and a plate full of Chinese firms.
Second, they've received a DOE grant to revamp a facility in Michigan as a factory. While they mostly work with small batteries for the moment, it's clear they intend to be a player in autos.
Third, it's an IPO. This is the first notable IPO I've seen in quite a while. Originally scheduled to start at $8-10, they bumped it to $13.50. Shares rose to around 20 by market's close.
Exactly what this means in the long term is still to be seen. But for a fairly new company still operating well into the red to be able to generate that kind of cash in this market says something. I suspect it says something about a broader-view expectation of where the auto industry is headed in the next several years.
Link: Boston Globe article on the IPO
|
|
|
09-24-2009, 05:29 PM
|
#34
|
Rivet Master
Currently Looking...
1989 34.5' Airstream 345
Cleveland
, Tennessee
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 787
|
I don't know about a tow vehicle of this type today. It sure sounds like a wonderful toad for my MH though.
Ricky
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." Mark Twain
AIR 22749 WBCCI 2349 NOVA TAC TN-6
1989 345 LE Classic Motorhome
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|