Electric Car Carbon Footprint

pinemom · Post by **pinemom** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:02 am

Strange, kinda just skip read through everyones posts...on this whole new car concept.
Im not a rocket scientist nor am I an engineer...But actaully knowing people who are making and driving cross country a modified old
fire-engine, that has been transformed into a Bio-diesil....

But moving on in my eccentric idealistic brain...comes forth the idea somewhere from my child hood and a field trip we took somewhere...some Damn? Turbine's that turned churning water into electricity. I know we've all been to that field trip.
So on that idea...you take a Bio-diesel auto, somehow hook up the mechinizms to harness the energy from the turning wheels, to be diverted to holding energy cells. Hince its own Battery?
Ok like I said Im not an engineneer...But why hasnt this been done already!

pinemom · Post by **pinemom** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:23 am

http://www.oilandwaterproject.org

Man it had been so long since I veiwed it it took me a while to find it again.
But its a cool thing Oil and water...more precise vegitable seeds!

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:38 am

Next month I plan to buy a electric personal transport..It is made by a co. called Zap that builds electric car and pick ups..There web site is crap so you will have to dig around in it.. The one I want is a stand up model.. Grandfather is looking into the trike..There is a 300lb person riding one around town..It appears heavy duty.. I will build a trailer to carry an extra 36v. battery pack for the one I'm getting..

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:55 am

Discovery channel is running a program called Futurecar on wednesday night.
I don't know if it'll be any good.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:21 am

unjonharley wrote:Next month I plan to buy a electric personal transport..It is made by a co. called Zap that builds electric car and pick ups..There web site is crap so you will have to dig around in it.. The one I want is a stand up model.. Grandfather is looking into the trike..There is a 300lb person riding one around town..It appears heavy duty.. I will build a trailer to carry an extra 36v. battery pack for the one I'm getting..

/\
I just penciled up a seat desgin that will go on the trailer.. The trailer will not be necesary for short runs to the store or when riding the bus to town..But It will be nice for a whole day of screwing around..

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:51 pm

gyre wrote:I'm lost.
The fuel cell I'm talking about processes or burns hydrocarbons and produces electricity.
I think you are talking about a different type of fuel cell.
I can not find the one I am interested in for sale.
As far as I know hydrogen is not involved.
Are you talking about a hydrogen storage cell?

On this search I did find some that run on gasoline.

http://www.fuelcells.org/basics/types.html

Fuel cell is a fuel cell. They strip the electrons off of hydrogen atoms and feed them through the circuit and then they meet back up with the protons at the other side.

They don't "burn" it at all. The ones that you can put hydrocarbons into do the same thing, they just have to strip the hyrdogen out first with a "reformer":

"Hydrogen is difficult to store and distribute, so it would be much more convenient if fuel cells could use fuels that are more readily available. This problem is addressed by a device called a reformer. A reformer turns hydrocarbon or alcohol fuels into hydrogen, which is then fed to the fuel cell. Unfortunately, reformers are not perfect. They generate heat and produce other gases besides hydrogen. They use various devices to try to clean up the hydrogen, but even so, the hydrogen that comes out of them is not pure, and this lowers the efficiency of the fuel cell. "

Gasoline, Methanol, Propane, etc are all hydrocarbons and could be used, but only the hydrogen is actually used in a fuel cell. A fuel cell is just the opposite of running power through water to get hydrogen and oxygen.

Electrolysis: Electricity + Water = Hydrogen and Oxygen

Fuel cell: Hydrogen + Oxygen + catalysis = Electricity and Water

Badger

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:00 pm

That was the idea I was getting from what I've read.
But I still don't know what the cell I saw really was.
It may have been too exotic a design for anyone outside of nasa to even tinker with.
I remember the owner was saying it was a prototype cell.
He said it was all very practical except for the cost of the cell.
He was unable to even put a price on it.

It may have been a hydrogen based design, but I don't know.
Is it chemically impossible to have been something else?

Archantael · Post by **Archantael** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:04 pm

unjonharley wrote:Next month I plan to buy a electric personal transport..It is made by a co. called Zap that builds electric car and pick ups..There web site is crap so you will have to dig around in it.. The one I want is a stand up model.. Grandfather is looking into the trike..There is a 300lb person riding one around town..It appears heavy duty.. I will build a trailer to carry an extra 36v. battery pack for the one I'm getting..

I've got a Zappy scooter. The battery life stinks....and while it would work ok on the flat playa the one I've got chokes on anything more than a 2% grade. YMMV but I wouldn't buy another scooter from them again.

Token · Post by **Token** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:21 pm

Fuel cells do not have to be based on Hydrogen.

A fuel cell needs a fuel and an oxidant. The fuel and oxidant are catalytically combined and consumed while producing electrical potential.

The reason Hydrogen fuel cells are such a hot item: Waste Product is Water.

Hydrogen is the fuel, oxygen from air is the oxidant. Once the fuel and oxidant are consumed the resulting product is water which can be dumped on the ground.

Other fuel cells are already available and viable: Zinc Air fuel cells operate by oxidizing Zinc and produce Zinc Oxide which must be removed at the fuel station for recycling and new Zinc anodes installed. i.e. the fuel is solid, abundant, and fully regenerative. These are mass produced today.

It is funny that a discovery made in the early 1800s which was viably executed in the 1950s, has powered most NASA vehicles since day one, has finally become a hot topic.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:10 pm

Hi mom!

K-mom · Post by **K-mom** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:51 am

Hey Lil Dougly how you been?

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:07 pm

Anybody see the Future Car program on discovery?

LeChatNoir · Post by **LeChatNoir** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:38 pm

MikeVDS wrote:
Depends on the power plant now doesn't it?
True, assuming you buy it from green power. I know you can pay more for green power in certain areas, but I'm not sure that means much except where your money goes. If the grid needs more power because of demand I don't think they power up extra wind turbines or solar panels.

Every time I look at a light bulb, I directly relate it to trees falling and mountains being pushed into valleys. Clean coal technology is great for the people who donâ€™t live in coal country. I've replaced all but three of the bulbs in my house with compact fluorescents (and Iâ€™m waiting for them to burn out) and I still feel bad about it. I think about this when I think of plugging an electric car in to charge at night. I try to hold onto MikeVDS's comment on it being investment in the future of clean energy, but sometimes it all gets to me.

For The Burn this year I'm buying more solar panels for our camp. Then after The Burn, these panels will be used to power the computer and satellite modem here at the house, so at least my e-communications won't be burning any more coal than they already have.

Post by **mdmf007** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:30 am

LeChatNoir wrote:
MikeVDS wrote:
Depends on the power plant now doesn't it?

Everyone lives in coal country. Without the national intertie grid no single area would be able to handle their loads at peak times, when others are coming out of it.

Routinely power from the Columbia river dams is sent via interties to Los Angeles, texas, and locations. Power from coal plants all over the US and Canada is disbursed fom production to consumption points instantly and anywhere it is needed.

my favorite observation is that when someone buys "Green Power" they may not actually be getting it. If a company ihas green projects in New Hampshire using wind power and generates an average of say 10MW, they can sell that amount of green power anywhere they do business as long as they do not exceed the 10MW threshold.

This is done as many areas are less likely to purchase green power but are great areas to produce it.

some maps of distribution areas where power produced by any plant in that area can be consumed by any customer. Regions are also connected, but insulated against the next grid so it will preent a cascading power outage nationwide and can be contained to one area.

http://www.usdieselengines.com/US%20Power%20Grid.htm

http://www.appa.org/files/FMArticles/FM ... anding.pdf

Later all -

LeChatNoir · Post by **LeChatNoir** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:24 pm

We all certainly live in coal-powered country. Many folks don't get to see the effect making that electricity has on many places. There's no real direct visual link between turning on lights and this:

http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountain ... index.html

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:17 pm

Mountain top removal-- the most destructive, environmentally unsound method of mining humans have yet invented, if I am correctly informed. What a fine age we live in!

B.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:36 pm

This is the kind of aerodynamics I have in mind for the light highway proposal.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6842/

So, no one saw the Future Car show?

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:45 am

Mountain top removal-- the most destructive, environmentally unsound method of mining humans have yet invented, if I am correctly informed

I'm not informed on why it is so bad. Most things I hear are astestic problems. I don't doubt there are other problems, but I'm personally unaware of them.

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:00 am

MikeVDS wrote:
Mountain top removal-- the most destructive, environmentally unsound method of mining humans have yet invented, if I am correctly informed
I'm not informed on why it is so bad. Most things I hear are astestic problems. I don't doubt there are other problems, but I'm personally unaware of them.

Well, basically using explosives to blow the top off of mountains results in a lot of erosion. Plus, anything on or under the ground gets jumbled up and spread all over the place. Streams get filled in, wildlife killed-- it is just one big mess (kind of like the War in Iraq-- at one point, just for the hell of it, I started writing something comparing the two. Never finished it, don't know where it is.) People have had their houses isolated by mountain top removal, wells ruined, etc. Its only redeeming feature is that it is a cheap (for the mining companies) method of getting at hard to reach coal deposits. It don't know as any other nation uses the method, but I really think we shouldn't.

B.

Post by **mdmf007** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:15 am

Mines in the US used to have free reign on how they mine. Its been many decades since that was the case though. Mines must by law restore the land to as close to the same profile as before the project, I am not defending the mines, just pointing out hte fact that it is not as environemntally damaging as it used to be.

Overseas now, is a whole other story. Newmont Mining of Nevada is a worldwide operation, their record in the US is great, look at their S. America operations and they are poisoning streams killing people with cyanide accidents, leaving open pits, and raping the ground.

IMHO I think the US is probably the cleanest operators in the world.

later all

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:37 pm

This should provoke some ideas:

http://www.hammacher.com/publish/73595. ... arch&ls=CU

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:01 pm

http://www.theaircar.com

I posted this on eplaya many years ago.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:02 pm

Anyone see Futurecar this week?
This one was on fuels and included one running on compressed air.
I think they will run all four on March 3 on discovery.

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:14 pm

gyre wrote:Anyone see Futurecar this week?
This one was on fuels and included one running on compressed air.
I think they will run all four on March 3 on discovery.

I saw it.. I was especially impressed with the highschool kids from West Philly that made an ethanol car. Makes me wonder if I could get my Aveo to run ethanol.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:18 pm

gyre wrote:Anyone see Futurecar this week?
This one was on fuels and included one running on compressed air.
I think they will run all four on March 3 on discovery.

Let me guess, you must have me on your ignore list.
You obviously did not read what I posted just before your post.

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:34 pm

DVD Burner wrote:

http://www.theaircar.com

I posted this on eplaya many years ago.

Although, in theory, it would be ideal for someone living in a city apartment (like me), it still has the problem-- where would an apartment dweller plug it in overnight to recharge? (Or, at least I think it needs to be plugged in-- it mentions something about recharging if I skimmed the article correctly.)

They mention it has a 2000 km range (about 1240 miles, if my calculation is correct), which is pretty impressive.

I wonder if it will get imported to the USA? (Could it pass safety regulations?)

B.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:40 pm

BAS wrote:
Although, in theory, it would be ideal for someone living in a city apartment (like me), it still has the problem-- where would an apartment dweller plug it in overnight to recharge? (Or, at least I think it needs to be plugged in-- it mentions something about recharging if I skimmed the article correctly.)

It takes 6 min to charge and comes with the compressor.
They are also working on the compressor/generator to be built in on future models.
Yes, we are talking perpetual motion vehicle.
(Which by the way are not hard to build.)

BAS wrote:
They mention it has a 2000 km range (about 1240 miles, if my calculation is correct), which is pretty impressive.

I wonder if it will get imported to the USA? (Could it pass safety regulations?)

B.

I hope so.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:53 pm

DVD Burner wrote:
gyre wrote:Anyone see Futurecar this week?
This one was on fuels and included one running on compressed air.
I think they will run all four on March 3 on discovery.
Let me guess, you must have me on your ignore list.
You obviously did not read what I posted just before your post.

I've never used the ignore thing so far.
I didn't connect that with the show and couldn't pull up the site.
I have trouble getting on eplaya and even opening mail.
Tried to pm earlier and lost the whole connection.

I'm very skeptical of compressed air but it's interesting.
I've seen a lot of claims that when I check into, the science doesn't stand up.
But I have done amazing things just fine tuning cars.

Alcohol can have corrosive effects on most engines.
I avoid mixed fuel because of that.
A car built from scratch might be okay.

The new Tesla has 7000 lithium batteries.
Great idea but very expensive to do.

I think ultralight cars using modern direct injection engines are the way to go for now, but options are interesting.
The light design and aero works for any vehicle type.

I've been looking at electric bikes and even that is expensive if you want one that works.

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:06 am

It takes 6 min to charge and comes with the compressor.
They are also working on the compressor/generator to be built in on future models.
Yes, we are talking perpetual motion vehicle.
(Which by the way are not hard to build.)

I missed the part on the proposed built in compressor/generator. Isn't the six minute charge time at an air pressure recharge station, or something like that? I tried their link but couldn't get anything to come up (it might be my spam filter blocking pop-ups again-- I keep forgetting I have that feature turned on). I'm curious if I could recharge one from an air hose at a gas station! If so, I am SO interested!

I'd like to see them imported, too.

B.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:09 am

They have released some interesting technical info on the aircar.
I sent the page to a friend to see if he thinks the engineering holds up.
The connecting rod looks very unusual.
I know how much went into one of my engines just to get a little better angle on the connecting rods.