Future Car

Pete Simmons

Member
Messages
546
Location
Melbourne, FL
The Science Channel - Future Car

In general I like the shows and the beautiful HD picture BUT,

They are getting way outta hand in their "DATA"!

It was so bad I even sent them a letter.


Here are a few things I sent them.

1. Hydrogen - Most abundant isotope in the universe, you fail to mention the power used to break it down.

2. Hydrogen Storage - I think you went as far as saying the flame from Hydrogen will NOT burn human skin. Where did you get this fantasy? Do you think if I camped out under the Space Shuttle (Hydrogen Powered ) at lift off I would only get a nice tan??

3. H-Car could even power your house, again where is the free hydrogen coming from.

Poor info like this only degrades the integrity factor of all your shows. You need to check your facts and consider the other side of the debate prior to broadcasting.
 
I too watched that program with much interest, Pete. And had many of the same questions. But I didn't (probably should have...) contact them about their "facts".

I'll try not to get political here, but I simply attribute such reports to media bias. One of the reasons that many Americans take the stances they do, or believe what they do is because they've been "fed" this crap by the media. Why? Look for the money trail. It "ALWAYS" about the money these days. Unfortunate? Yes indeed, but who has the money to fight it (because that's what it would take)? People like you, me and even knowledgeable university chemists and physicists certainly don't. I'll leave my remarks at that to try and avoid an argument.
 
Not to hijack the thread, but in the same vein...

My wife and I were watching the Weather Channel last weekend and the meteorologist was commenting on the ferocity of the tornadoes that had recently ravaged the south east. She noted that, "one of the tornadoes had even crossed state lines."
After a few seconds of blank "did she really say that?" stares my wife and I laughed for about 5 minutes non-stop.
 
Not to hijack the thread, but in the same vein...

My wife and I were watching the Weather Channel last weekend and the meteorologist was commenting on the ferocity of the tornadoes that had recently ravaged the south east. She noted that, "one of the tornadoes had even crossed state lines."
After a few seconds of blank "did she really say that?" stares my wife and I laughed for about 5 minutes non-stop.
The must have had a crew out fixing it right afterwards, because I just checked my US map, and none of the state lines look blown out of place. :huh: I still wish they had big black state lines you could see from an airplane. :p
 
Not to hijack the thread, but in the same vein...

My wife and I were watching the Weather Channel last weekend and the meteorologist was commenting on the ferocity of the tornadoes that had recently ravaged the south east. She noted that, "one of the tornadoes had even crossed state lines."
After a few seconds of blank "did she really say that?" stares my wife and I laughed for about 5 minutes non-stop.

:rofl:

Contrary to popular opinion, being on television does not make you intelligent.
 
Safe Hydrogen - Some call it water!

Please hijack the thread.

I would like to learn more examples of how TV is educating us.

Is this site great or what?

Take today. In just a short amount of time I have learned that some of the more malacious tornados out there can even cross state lines.

I was all set to buy some land that straddled a state line so that I would be able to just move over the line if bad weather was spotted on one side.

What a fool I was thinking I could actually cross a state line when now I know that something as powerful as some of the smaller more peaceful tornados cannot.


Speaking of Hydrogen again - Do you know most large AC Generators (as in power plants ) use Hydrogen inside the coils of the generator for cooling?

Every once in a while a generator blows up I wonder what it is that does that? I am sure it would not be the safe to store and use Hydrogen.

The Future Car show also went on to show the picture of the blimp Hinderburg burning. They explained it as (I missed exactly what was said ) some kinda oxide on the outside of the metal skin/frame causing the fire. Maybe we should get some of that powerful oxide to power our future cars. That blimp fire sure looked powerful to me.
 
I'm not sure how much faith you have in NASA scientests, but one of them along with a UCLA engineering professor claim that it was actually the "dope" they used on the skin of the Hindenburg that caused the fire. In essence the skin was coated with an effective rocket fuel of sorts (cellulose acetate and aluminum powder). You can read the details here, if you'd like.
 
Interesting link, Billy. I didn't know about the rocket fuel/skin dope theory.

Sorry, I can't resist...


manatee.jpg
 
Did Learn

I did learn something today. Thanks for the link. I had never heard that theory.

I also agree with this statement from the link.

"Actually, its great buoyancy and extremely high diffusivity in air make for a very rapid dispersal before ignition can take place," Van Vorst further noted. "Gasoline, on the other hand, with its heavier-than-air vapor, simply accumulates until a flammable mixture is formed and ignites." In fact, he said, hydrogen is even "safer than propane, and is on a par with natural gas."

Fire wise I believe Hydrogen is about as difficult as these other fuels to control.

We have all seen some type of gas fire. Tanker truck, auto gas tank, home gas systems and more.

via places I worked I have seen

1. a large high pressure hydrogen gas truck spring a bad leak then burst into flame.

2. A boiling water nuclear reactor disassociates water as part of its process. The excess hrdrogen is vented off via the large stacks. Hydrogen accumulated in the stack and there was a explosion.

3. At a place that bottled hydrogen by chemical reaction on ammonia the heated ammonia caught fire and proceeded from there with vigor.

BTW - no one was killed at any of those incidents.

Do we have the technology to use hydrogen, of course. I am just saying it is not easy and we need to use some caution.

Hydrogen happens to be very hard to contain in a metal tank. It also interacts with metal and causes hydrogen embrittlement.

My biggest complaint is I keep hearing the "most abundant" line. Yes it is. Something like 43% of the known universe is hydrogen. It is just that people forget the fact that most of it is combined with something and at this point in time it takes alot of energy to seperate the hydrogen.

It is kinda like telling the drowning man 10 feet underwater that he is surrounded by oxygen. Hope he figures a quick and easy way to seperate the oxygen so that he can use it.

To change the subject a little I get even more upset over electric cars. Again people forget where the electricity comes from.

I have recently been studying some energy options. The more I look into it I feel that without a breakthrough the best thing we might do is start teaching our grandkids how to live in mideveil times.
 
Interesting link, Billy. I didn't know about the rocket fuel/skin dope theory.

Sorry, I can't resist...


manatee.jpg

I think its a downright shame you are poking fun of a tragedy that killed so many people Vaughn. I am outraged that you would post such a thing...

(I'm really not offended, but since someone got upset at me for something I said very similar regarding a tragedy, I could not help but point out the double-standard. Rock on my friend, rock on...)
 
Last edited:
To change the subject a little I get even more upset over electric cars. Again people forget where the electricity comes from.

I agree with what you guys are saying about the media, but electric cars are not as clear cut as it seems. Yes electricity does come from some fossil fueled burning generation plants, but the cost is spread over a range of power producing facilities. These may be nuclear, wind, solar, oil, gas or coal. Some are better then others, but it is a mixture and not just from burning gasoline.

At the same time, a grid charging system is very efficient as a whole. If you don't believe me, unhook the power from your pole and try to power your house with a generator, windmill, solar array or hydro dam. You will quickly find out that grid power is VERY cheap to buy. The same applies to charging up a car.
 
I got a minor "stupid media quote"of my own.

There have been tons of accidents over the past few weeks here in Maine because the MDOT just cannot get salt or sand to spread on slippery roads. This year they have used more salt and sand on the roads then the last three years combined!! Knowing that this hyped up weather forecaster had the audacity to tell us Mainer's this for the 4 inches of unexpected snow we got today.

"This is the most snow we have seen all year."

She must have been in Florida when we had this storm earlier in the year! Four inches haaa...that is a mere dusting for us...barely enough to track a cat on! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Car-small.JPG
 
Grid Power

Travis - I agree that grid power is very cheap to buy. That is actually the downfall of many alternate energy deals at this time.

I know there are huge losses in every step of the way to get that grid energy to the wheel/pavement transition of your electric car.

I do not know the numbers, but want to find out the losses in each step below.

1. Grid generated power 500 miles away. - transmission losses

2. battery charge/store/discharge cycle - loses - I have heard as much as 50% right here.

3. Motor controller to motor to wheel - loses

So for a minute just think of the equalivant energy in whatever grid power fuel you want to use for 1 gallon of gas. That amount of energy generated with all the above losses may only get you 5 miles while if you used the 1 gallon of gas in you car you would get 20-40 miles. If we stripped down todays 30 mpg car to be near the weight/size/eff of your typical electric car it just might get 40-60 mpg.
 
I don't know: I'm just an english major, not an engineer. But it seems like there are lots of people who do know stuff who are putting a lot of effort and money into these things...

Who knows, maybe they're just hedging their bets. But these companies aren't exactly famous for spending pointless money. Well, some of them are, but that's a different story... ;)

Thanks,

Bill

* BMW — The BMW Hydrogen 7 is powered by a dual-fuel Internal Combustion Engine and with an Auxiliary power based on UTC Power fuel cell technology. The BMW H2R speed record car is also powered by an ICE. Both models use Liquid Hydrogen as fuel.
* Daimler AG — F-Cell, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle based on the Mercedes-Benz A-Class.
* Ford Motor Company – Focus FCV, a hydrogen fuel cell modification of the Ford Focus, and E-350 buses, which began being leased in late 2006.
* General Motors — multiple models of fuel cell vehicles[37] including the Hy-wire and the HydroGen3
* Honda – currently experimenting with a variety of alternative fuels and fuel cells with experimental vehicles based on the Honda EV Plus, most notable the Honda FCX, powered by a front-mounted 80 kW AC electric motor, with 20 kW pancake motors providing supplemental power to the rear wheels. Electrical energy is provided by a 100 kW hydrogen fuel cell, with regenerative braking energy stored in ultracapacitors. The first production version of the FCX, dubbed the FCX Clarity, was announced at the 2007 Greater Los Angeles Auto Show. The vehicle is expected to be available in limited numbers for lease only in the Los Angeles area. mid-2008.[38] In November 2007, Honda announced its new Home Energy Station IV that uses steam reforming of natural gas to derive hydrogen from both the steam and natural gas in equal parts. The Home Energy Station IV is 75-percent smaller than older units and provides hydrogen for a car as well as heat and electricity for the home.
* Hyundai — Tucson FCEV, based on UTC Power fuel cell technology
* Mazda - RX-8, with a dual-fuel (hydrogen or gasoline) rotary-engine[39]
* Mazda - Mazda Premacy Hydrogen RE Hybrid, with a dual-fuel (hydrogen or gasoline) rotary-engine[40]
* Nissan — X-TRAIL FCV, based on UTC Power fuel cell technology.
* Morgan Motor Company – LIFEcar, a performance-oriented hydrogen fuel cell vehicle with the aid of several other British companies
* Toyota – The Toyota Highlander FCHV and FCHV-BUS[41] are currently under development and in active testing. In November 2007, ten new hydrogen powered Prius cars were delivered to three companies in Iceland by VISTORKA, a shareholder in Icelandic New Energy. [3]

* Volkswagen also has hydrogen fuel cell cars in development.
 
Green Companies

Bill:

All the alternate fueled autos mentioned are great stepping stones to the next event.

Some of it is these companies getting on the "Green Bandwagon" that the public wants and will buy.

Unless they have found some new free source of energy I would bet that if we followed the energy path back to its start we would find we are using hydrogen as an energy transfer medium at a large cost of some more conventional fuel.

The more I get into this the more I would like to produce a TV show (remember I know ZERO about making a TV show ) that shows the dark side of many of our so called green energy sources.

I am not against using these new ideas as I do think they are a good step in the next direction and expose people to some new ideas on energy use, but I do want to point out that many of the earth friendly, energy saving devices are NOT as earth friendly as some would like you to think.


OK - So who out there knows how to and can help me produce a new energy TV show.
 
Travis - I agree that grid power is very cheap to buy. That is actually the downfall of many alternate energy deals at this time.

I know there are huge losses in every step of the way to get that grid energy to the wheel/pavement transition of your electric car.

I do not know the numbers, but want to find out the losses in each step below.

1. Grid generated power 500 miles away. - transmission losses

2. battery charge/store/discharge cycle - loses - I have heard as much as 50% right here.

3. Motor controller to motor to wheel - loses

So for a minute just think of the equalivant energy in whatever grid power fuel you want to use for 1 gallon of gas. That amount of energy generated with all the above losses may only get you 5 miles while if you used the 1 gallon of gas in you car you would get 20-40 miles. If we stripped down todays 30 mpg car to be near the weight/size/eff of your typical electric car it just might get 40-60 mpg.
I don't have the data in front of me, but I remember reading a report that gave the cost per mile for electric cars and gasoline cars. The electric car was much cheaper on a cost/mile basis. The study was done prior the run up in gasoline prices. The cost/mile was the amount the user of the car would pay. Electricity is a profit making business so the cost per KWh includes all the generation and distribution costs - there's no subsidy for electricity costs.

I'm not sure if you're equating a big car, like a Lincoln Navigator, to a small car like a Prius, and saying that if we stripped the Lincoln down to the weight of a Prius the Lincoln would get the same gas mileage, or if you're saying that a hybrid car weighs less than an equivalent sized gasoline only car.

Since the hybrid has to carry the battery and electric motor, as well as the gasoline engine and fuel, I would expect the hybrid to weigh more than an equivalent sized gasoline only vehicle.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Bill:

All the alternate fueled autos mentioned are great stepping stones to the next event.

Some of it is these companies getting on the "Green Bandwagon" that the public wants and will buy.

Unless they have found some new free source of energy I would bet that if we followed the energy path back to its start we would find we are using hydrogen as an energy transfer medium at a large cost of some more conventional fuel.

The more I get into this the more I would like to produce a TV show (remember I know ZERO about making a TV show ) that shows the dark side of many of our so called green energy sources.

I am not against using these new ideas as I do think they are a good step in the next direction and expose people to some new ideas on energy use, but I do want to point out that many of the earth friendly, energy saving devices are NOT as earth friendly as some would like you to think.


OK - So who out there knows how to and can help me produce a new energy TV show.
The biggest problem with many green energy sources is that they are not reliable sources of energy. Wind only generates when the wind's blowing. Solar only generates when the sun's shining.

The hidden secret about many green energy sources is that the electric company has to put in equal amounts of non-green energy sources so that they can reliably supply energy when the green source is not.

There's been a lot of work done recently on storage systems - one of which is using the green energy to pump air into caverns then use the air to turn generators when the green source is not available - but it's inefficient and unproven.

The only green source that's reliable is geothermal, but that generally also requires a source of water and often the two don't align.

My opinion is that nuclear is the best choice - reliable, no carbon dioxide, but has the waste problem.

Mike
 
Mike:

Even nuclear has long term fuel problems. If we continue with the type of reactors we have today we do not have a long term (100-200 year) supply of fuel. The change required that I talk about is NOT fusion but rather some other fission fuel like Thorium which is more abundant than Uranium.

I agree that in the near future nuclear needs to be used more.


By the way I am an x-nuke.

The waste problem is largly contained in fear and politics.

Quit worry about what condition Yucca Mountain will be in 50,000 years and get the fuel waste stored there now where it should be fine for 50-500 years. Maybe during that time we will have other ideas/uses for it.

Consider what we are now doing instead of storing in Yucca Mountain - We store used fuel in some 100+ fuel pools at the scattered around the country reactor sites. Compared to where it is stored now Yucca Mountain is a much safer place. And YES we do have the means to transport it.
 
I am a big proponent of Nuclear Power. My wifes aunt worked with, and was part of, a nuclear physicist group for the GE Corporation and designed the propulsion systems for the US Navy. She was telling me that the reactors they now have produce only 10% of the waste the old reactor designs produced...and yet no reactors have ever been built since the 1970's.:dunno::dunno::dunno:

At the same time, let me ask everyone how many people were killed by nuclear power plants in the last year? In the last 10 years? Well last year alone 31 people died in coal mining mishaps...an average year. I think the funniest media report I saw on nuclear power was when they interviewed a supervisor at the NH Seabrook plant prior to Y2K.

She said," Are you prepared for Y2k here at Seabrook."

The guy laughed. "Not really. I might not get paid next week. The only thing we use computers for is for payroll. We don't rely on computers for our power generating operations.":rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Top