no.1. issue of 2010

zod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giAVYfzCzBc

McSandwich

Gurgle wrote: »

That smells a little like propaganda....
Any idea where it came from originally?

Not sure if its the same source, but its used in this presentation:

http://policy.rutgers.edu/ceeep/hydrogen/events/H2Andrews.pdf

Capt'n Midnight

Gurgle wrote: »

That smells a little like propaganda....
Any idea where it came from originally?

of course it's propoganda

image is on wikipedia

Gurgle

McSandwich wrote: »

Not sure if its the same source, but its used in this presentation:

http://policy.rutgers.edu/ceeep/hydrogen/events/H2Andrews.pdf

Look at the tag-line under the image - they got it from Wikipedia, which kinda puts the lie to the 'research' they're presenting.

(Also the gratuituous use of the phrase 'future technology')

I asks because there's no account taken for the energy and pollution involved in production of Li-ion batteries, or the limited re-usability - especially in applications where reducing capacity over the battery's lifetime is a major disadvantage.

Your 200km battery pack will only carry you 50km after the 300th recharging.

McSandwich

Gurgle wrote: »

Look at the tag-line under the image - they got it from Wikipedia, which kinda puts the lie to the 'research' they're presenting.

(Also the gratuituous use of the phrase 'future technology')

I asks because there's no account taken for the energy and pollution involved in production of Li-ion batteries, or the limited re-usability - especially in applications where reducing capacity over the battery's lifetime is a major disadvantage.

Your 200km battery pack will only carry you 50km after the 300th recharging.

Valid points, however the various technologies (and their efficiencies) will improve with further investment and commercial success. The evolution of petrol and diesel engines to date is testament to this.

Lithium batteries are less polluting than Lead or Nickel and can be recycled - but dumping is easier.

As for battery life, there are various approaches to overcoming this problem, including:

1. Improve energy storage technologies (lab tests have achieved 300,000 cycles for Li-on).
2. Install bigger, higher capacity, batteries than required.
3. Restrict range and maximum speed (a strategy best suited to hybrids).
4. Again with hybrids - ensure that the battery is charged in a way which prolongs its usable life.

http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxicity.html

http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/09/toyota_tests_and_rejects_lithiumion_batteries_for_the_prius_1.html

http://www.ucd.ie/earth/seminars/16_17apr09_ws_paper.pdf

http://www.ucd.ie/earth/seminars/16_17apr09_ws_presentation.pdf

quentingargan

Cheeble wrote: »

No.1 IMO?

Reducing car dependency and use.

Cheeble-eers

I think the complications with electric cars shown in this post bear out Cheeble-eers' point that reduced car dependency is the priority.

Also, the embodied energy required to manufacture new cars can be as much as the energy used in its lifetime. So can we honestly say that changing the fleet to EVs or any other car is the solution?

Having owned two EVs in the last 15 years, I would still maintain that they are no panacea.

Gurgle

McSandwich wrote: »

Valid points, however the various technologies (and their efficiencies) will improve with further investment and commercial success. The evolution of petrol and diesel engines to date is testament to this.

This is the crux of the issue, for sustainable motoring we're still at the shotgun stage - hit everything, see what falls down.

Problem is of course that every 'opinion' available on the subject is commissioned (and therefore owned) by one company or another, so whatever they're peddling is the best answer.

My money is still on bio-diesel for the medium term (20-50 years), for the simple reason that the global distribution system can cover it with feck all investment.

All we need is an oily (GM) crop that thrives on sea-water, and the Sahara / Gobi / Wherever take over from the oil-fields.
Power / efficiency / weight / storage / safety of the various alternative solutions will take another while to sort out.

McSandwich

Gurgle wrote: »

This is the crux of the issue, for sustainable motoring we're still at the shotgun stage - hit everything, see what falls down.

Problem is of course that every 'opinion' available on the subject is commissioned (and therefore owned) by one company or another, so whatever they're peddling is the best answer.

My money is still on bio-diesel for the medium term (20-50 years), for the simple reason that the global distribution system can cover it with feck all investment.

All we need is an oily (GM) crop that thrives on sea-water, and the Sahara / Gobi / Wherever take over from the oil-fields.
Power / efficiency / weight / storage / safety of the various alternative solutions will take another while to sort out.

There is a lot of research into producing biofuels from algae (even cleaning polluted water as a side effect). Like you say, it could lead to a quick oil replacement - and not not only as a fuel. However, the issues regarding commercial ownership apply to biofuels too - especially when the crop is genetically modified (patents, etc.)..

djpbarry

McSandwich wrote: »

There is a lot of research into producing biofuels from algae (even cleaning polluted water as a side effect).

A fungus by the name of Gliocladium roseum (a household name - I'm sure you're all familiar with it) has recently been found to produce diesel-like compounds ('myco-diesel') under certain conditions:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15110-fungal-diesel-could-revolutionise-fuel-production.html

air

The big issue of this year will be the same as the big issue of this century.

OVERPOPULATION

All the so called green issues that we face are caused by human overpopulation, however along as governments predicate all economic policy on growth then nobody will ever admit it.