Ban the internal combustion engine

[KingsWizardC]

Let me guess all you gentlemen calling me names have poor relationships with the opposite sex or commit infidelity?

 

[The Infidel]

Let me guess all you gentlemen calling me names have poor relationships with the opposite sex or commit infidelity?

Nope... and she is hot too....

 

[ScienceRocks]

Electric cars run on electricy... Today most of that enegry comes from coal. I believe to have a chance to be as clean as half this country wishes it to be is to go nuclear. Sure it cost money, but half of this country wents a low co2 admitting energy source.

Solar and wind power can only take up so much as there is no way to save the energy and it takes up a crap load of land to make them the majority of our energy needs on them...

Then we need to make the electric cars able to take in power quickly being that some people are going to went to go on vacations and drive their cars instead of staying home. Meaning we must build tens of thousand of power stations like todays gas stations. In NO people don't went to wait a hour or more for it to charge,,,We need to find away to get these cars charged within 5 minutes.

All this must be thought about...

1# Clean energy or whats the point(effective and clean energy that we can rely on with little to no co2 output)
2# The frame work to make it work(Power stations, effectiveness.)

 

[Old Rocks]

Electric cars run on electricy... Today most of that enegry comes from coal. I believe to have a chance to be as clean as half this country wishes it to be is to go nuclear. Sure it cost money, but half of this country wents a low co2 admitting energy source.

First and foremost, whether we go to more nuclear or other alternatives, we have to put in a distributed grid. Last months Scientific American had a very good article on this.

Solar and wind power can only take up so much as there is no way to save the energy and it takes up a crap load of land to make them the majority of our energy needs on them...

The wheat fields that are dotted with the wind turbines still produce wheat. There is more than adaquete roofs on industrial and commercial buildings to supply many gwh of energy.

Then we need to make the electric cars able to take in power quickly being that some people are going to went to go on vacations and drive their cars instead of staying home. Meaning we must build tens of thousand of power stations like todays gas stations. In NO people don't went to wait a hour or more for it to charge,,,We need to find away to get these cars charged within 5 minutes.

How about 372 miles on one charge, with 18% still left, and a six minute recharge.

German electric car sets new distance record

All this must be thought about...

1# Clean energy or whats the point(effective and clean energy that we can rely on with little to no co2 output)
2# The frame work to make it work(Power stations, effectiveness.)

This can be done, but will be expensive. No matter what the mix of wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal, it will require a new grid. One that is overlain on our present grid. The Interstate System require time, but the effort was well worth it. This grid will also take time, but we can build the wind farms, solar installations, nukes, and geothermal stations as the grid is put in.

 

[KingsWizardC]

Whether we pass an engine ban or not calling for proposed legislation will open the door for people with comprehensive ideas like old rocks to be heard on a large scale. Upgrading the power grid and a long term solution to transportation and global warming is something that must be addressed now. When people are presented with the possibility of losing their cars / freedom they get moving and make things happen. Getting 100,000 signatures on something like this could very well inspire the choice to address this problem now.

Thank you for the intelligent arguments.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Electric cars run on electricy... Today most of that enegry comes from coal. I believe to have a chance to be as clean as half this country wishes it to be is to go nuclear. Sure it cost money, but half of this country wents a low co2 admitting energy source.

First and foremost, whether we go to more nuclear or other alternatives, we have to put in a distributed grid. Last months Scientific American had a very good article on this.

Solar and wind power can only take up so much as there is no way to save the energy and it takes up a crap load of land to make them the majority of our energy needs on them...

The wheat fields that are dotted with the wind turbines still produce wheat. There is more than adaquete roofs on industrial and commercial buildings to supply many gwh of energy.

Then we need to make the electric cars able to take in power quickly being that some people are going to went to go on vacations and drive their cars instead of staying home. Meaning we must build tens of thousand of power stations like todays gas stations. In NO people don't went to wait a hour or more for it to charge,,,We need to find away to get these cars charged within 5 minutes.

How about 372 miles on one charge, with 18% still left, and a six minute recharge.

German electric car sets new distance record

All this must be thought about...

1# Clean energy or whats the point(effective and clean energy that we can rely on with little to no co2 output)
2# The frame work to make it work(Power stations, effectiveness.)

This can be done, but will be expensive. No matter what the mix of wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal, it will require a new grid. One that is overlain on our present grid. The Interstate System require time, but the effort was well worth it. This grid will also take time, but we can build the wind farms, solar installations, nukes, and geothermal stations as the grid is put in.

Corn=co2, so we may not went to go that way if we are thinking about a low co2 producing energy source. 372 miles if we can main stream and make it cost effective, it's pretty good, but if we're going to rebuild a grid to support energy stations then these cars must be recharged within 15-30 minutes and 6 minutes is really good if we can do it.. And people just don't like waiting for many hours while it charges...Quick charge that will be able to take over for the combustion engine is what we went. If we can charge a car in 6 minutes then this may work...

So with this being side we need to rebuild the national grid to support such a system, which transfers the energy from the energy producer to the car, truck, ect. That will take time and we should only phase out gas and the combustion engine as it becomes ready. Not in any one or a dozen years will we be able to do this, but it is possible long term.

I agree with nuclear and maybe as solar panels advance they will become more important. Hydro is also a good way of making energy...So this could solve what we're going to use as the clean energy producer that goes through that grid into those power stations.

We must do it right and in a way that won't harm the economy. If we do it right then it may work. We will have to see.

 

[M14 Shooter]

over 19 billion tons of freight, valued at $13 trillion, was carried over 4.4 trillion ton-miles in the United States in 2002.
Electric vehicles can't do that. Not in 5 years, not in 10, not in 20.

How much eletricity does it take to move an 80,000lb vehicle 700 miles in 14 hours across randomly level ground?

 

[KingsWizardC]

It has been brought to my attention compressed air motors are a viable option.

 

[editec]

Electric cars make about as much sense as hydrogen cars.

Both are even less efficient than internal combustion machines.

Now if we could find a way of generating enough electricity without also polluting, then they'd make sense, I suppose.

Otherwise?

They are not a solution to either the energy problem OR the pollution problem.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I have a better petition: A Petition to Ban greenpeace loving, Al Gore quoting, green thumb autoritarians whose mommy and daddies did not give them enough love when they were children. Now back to your drum circle.

 

[editec]

It has been brought to my attention compressed air motors are a viable option.

Viable for what purpose?

It takes enormous energy to compress that air to give it the potential energy to move that vehicle.

So how does this technology actually help?

 

[KingsWizardC]

stop acting like can't combust water and create an infinite energy source

 

[KingsWizardC]

checked with a meteorologist he says water vapor dissipates in a few days excessive output is not a problem.

 

[daveman]

Whether we pass an engine ban or not calling for proposed legislation will open the door for people with comprehensive ideas like old rocks to be heard on a large scale. Upgrading the power grid and a long term solution to transportation and global warming is something that must be addressed now. When people are presented with the possibility of losing their cars / freedom they get moving and make things happen. Getting 100,000 signatures on something like this could very well inspire the choice to address this problem now.

Thank you for the intelligent arguments.

Getting 100,000 signatures on your silly petition will show only that there are 100,000 people with absolutely no clue about how electric cars work, their limitations, and how electricity is generated and distributed around the nation -- in other words, people like the moron holding the sign in Post #2.

 

[KingsWizardC]

It's called water thermolosis

I read that water at about 2500C, decomposes in H2 and 1/2 O2, also if two volums of H2 burn with one volume of O2 (think at 2500C they will do this) result water.

 

[daveman]

over 19 billion tons of freight, valued at $13 trillion, was carried over 4.4 trillion ton-miles in the United States in 2002.
Electric vehicles can't do that. Not in 5 years, not in 10, not in 20.

How much eletricity does it take to move an 80,000lb vehicle 700 miles in 14 hours across randomly level ground?

Semi-trailer trucks
The Port of Los Angeles and South Coast Air Quality Management District have demonstrated a short-range heavy-duty all electric truck capable of hauling a fully loaded 40-foot (12 m) cargo container. The current design is capable of pulling a 60,000 lb (27 t) cargo container at speeds up to 40 mph (64 km/h) and has a range of between 30 and 60 miles (48 and 97 km). It uses 2 kilowatt-hours per mile (1.2 kW·h/km; 4.5 MJ/km), compared to 5 miles per US gallon (47 L/100 km; 6.0 mpg-imp) for the hostler semi tractors it replaces.[14]​

From the link [14]:

Performance
9 Maximum speed: 40 mph
9 Maximum range (empty): 60 miles/full charge
9 Maximum Range (fully loaded): 30 miles/full charge
Charging Specs
9 Charging Time (60% charge): 1 hour
9 Charging Time (100% charge): 3-4 hours
9 Price per truck: $189,950 (yard hostler model); $208,500 (on-road model)
9 Price of charger: $75,000, can charge 4 vehicles simultaneously
9 Charger Connection: existing 440v system (total output 80kw)
-more-2
Reduced Energy Consumption and Costs
Electric Truck Diesel Truck with 5 miles-per-gallon*
2 kilowatt hours of energy units per mile electrical equivalent of 8 kilowatt hours of energy
units per mile
Operation cost: 20 cents per mile Operation cost: 80 cents to 90 cents per mile
* The above energy consumption and energy cost comparisons are based on a 100% duty
cycle, which diminishes in the diesel truck when the truck is idling. A common 50/50 duty
cycle in a diesel truck, reflecting 50 percent idling time, would increase the diesel truck’s
cost per kilowatt hour from .90 to $1.80.​

So: For this electric truck to go 700 miles, it would cost $140 in electricity. But it would cost $1,750,000 to install chargers every 30 miles. Transit time for the 700 miles, at 40 mph: 17.5 hours. But you have to add in the charging time, too, and that would add another 93 hours to make the trip total 110.5 hours.

So: the electric truck is almost 10 times slower elapsed time. And it can only haul 60,000 pounds, not the 80,000 of a diesel-powered truck. Everything that moves by truck would then cost far more.

 

[daveman]

It has been brought to my attention compressed air motors are a viable option.

No, they're not.

 

[editec]

stop acting like can't combust water and create an infinite energy source

Yeah, I must have missed that day in science class.

 

[editec]

It's called water thermolosis

I read that water at about 2500C, decomposes in H2 and 1/2 O2, also if two volums of H2 burn with one volume of O2 (think at 2500C they will do this) result water.

And how does one get that water to break down into hydrogen and oxygen?

By using more energy than one gets from the energy you'll get from the hydrogen.


Now does that sound like a solution to the ENERGY problem?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I like the defense of personal liberty. However americans are not allowed to assualt or rape each other. Buring oil assualts my lungs and pooring it into the sea (and drilling for it) is a rape of the earth. Like that scary prison guy forcefully drilling you for his own feeling of empowerment.

Thank you for your thoughtful insights.