What type of propulsion will power our cars in twenty years time?

H3llR4iser

LordSutch wrote: »

Surely by 2033 the petrol engine will be pushing up the daisies and talked about in fond terms
in the same way some old folk reminisce about the steam trains of their youth )

So what do you think will replace the internal combustion engine in twenty years time?
might Hybrid be king? or might some form of advanced Battery power taken over? what about Hydrogen cell power?
Compressed Air powered engines? compressed gas? a new form of steam engine? without the coal obviously . . . .

Can't see the petrol engine still going in twenty years time, can you?

Big, bulky, heavy, over-insulated, pointless and still moved by a century-old reciprocating engine burning fossil fuels.

All it really takes is to look back 20, 25 and 30 years to see what has since become of cars: They grew heavier, taller, longer, bulkier and have been filled to the brim with pointless gizmos. Most current "small family" cars (think Ford Focus, Peugeot 309, Golf VII and the likes) will look like a Ford Transit if parked next to most executive sedans from the late 80s - early '90s. A BMW 318i E36 weighed roughly 1300 kg, a new 316i weighs 1485kg. It put up about 185kg - in the era of composites and light alloys.

Car manufacturers swear by progress, developing more fuel efficient engines, and then slam them on bulky barges that weigh as much as the moon and, in some cases, have the drag coefficient of a bendy bus driven sideways - because that's what customers want.

corkgsxr

gbee wrote: »

We could already be running nuclear engines that would not need refuelling for twenty years and in twenty years time we should have perfected the safe sealed fast breeder mini reactor that would or could run for hundreds of years.

Take a look at the nuclear power plants in the US Aircraft Fleet from their conception to the The new Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers with their A1B reactor plant that is a smaller, more efficient design that provides approximately three times the electrical power of the Nimitz-class A4W reactor plant.

On that note we could also be running many things on free energy engines, no batteries ever, and we can have radiation free miniature power from particles for small items like wrist watches and mobile phones.

We are awash with energy TBH.

cost. thats the problem. there are prob plenty ways you could do it now but the avarage family car cant cost 400000 euro

keithclancy

gbee wrote: »

Not right. What you are referring to is essentially spent nuclear fuel already out of the reactor.

AFAIK the only concepts that have been created are based on Thorium which in itself is pretty nasty if you spread it over a wide area.

Essentially you'd be driving a steam powered car.

I couldn't see such a complicated and potentially dangerous device being put into manually controlled vehicles zooming around the place at 120km/h when nuclear material is so tightly controlled.

F*ck sake your not even supposed to regas your Aircon yourself in most countries

When you put something out to the general public you have to assume that they'll do something to it you never envisaged. I've seen a guy stick an Aluminium Chimney on a homemade firepit, while most people would think this is 'ok' Aluminium melts fairly easily and when it comes into contact with water is explosive.

Queue light drizzle and a star trek like red shirt killing boom with bricks flying all over the place.

Boards Motors forum in 20 years talking about reactor modding for an extra 20bhp ... nahhh

PrzemoF

Electricity. Supplied from battery, wire-in-the-road or both.

keithclancy

PrzemoF wrote: »

Electricity. Supplied from battery, wire-in-the-road or both.

Thats here later this year in Brabant.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/30/smart-highway-glows-in-the-dark

Mr Benevolent

I'm guessing ultra efficient ceramic bladed mini jet turbines. Hot as hell, so power can be taken from heat generation or torque from shaft output.

But in reality it'll probably go very gradually towards battery power.

Solair

I don't think you're going to see a massive move towards electric cars in most countries until sometime beyond 2020 other than in a limited way in urban areas and probably increased use of things like plug-in hybrids.

The battery technology simply is not up to it. When (and I do think it's going to happen) someone comes up with a battery system that allows them to be as quickly refueled as a petrol/diesel car and has sufficient range, then we'll be into a whole new ballgame entirely.

I suspect the battery technology will be developed because there is huge R&D going into power storage systems from the electronics sector. The massive explosion in demand for power-hungry portable devices like tablets, smartphones, etc etc is forcing them to re-think the battery and I think a breakthrough like that's far more likely to come from the electronics engineers than automotive companies.

corkgsxr

Confab wrote: »

I'm guessing ultra efficient ceramic bladed mini jet turbines. Hot as hell, so power can be taken from heat generation or torque from shaft output.

But in reality it'll probably go very gradually towards battery power.

ya forgot that. you could be right there. but setup is very small battery with only 20 mile range. basicly a buffer. turbine powers the motors and charges the battery. constant revs.

can also run on pretty much anything

jag i think have a concept version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75

Bpmull

I'd imagine electric cars are the future as if Ireland converted 10 percent of its land to wind farms it would produce 80 kw per day per person of power currently each person uses 77kw of energy per day in ireland that's all in including transport heating and everything. It's amazing to think 10 percent of our land could provide all energy needs the thing is everything would have to be converted to electric including transport and heating etc. I'd say it will be at least 50 years before everything is converted to electrical. We don't even need nuclear power in Ireland anyway. Ireland is one of the few countries in the world that would have a low enough population density to be able to achieve enough energy just through wind power. Also when graphene technology is used in batteries it will make electric cars more practical. Ill say no more I don't want to bore people I think we will still have petrol and diesel car in 20 years time.

Joe 90

I remember, back about 1970 maybe a bit before, the Sunday Times asked a couple of car manufacturers what sort of car we would be driving at the turn of the 21st century. One of the manufacturers was Rover who plumped for a gas turbine car. The other I think was Triumph who plumped fro a small refined 6 cylinder car. Interesting that the more conservative one was much closer to the mark.
Thinking about it, I suspect that it may well have been some time before 1970 as I think that Rover and Triumph had had a forced marriage by that point and were well on the way to becoming British Leyland which begat Rover.

Rover did a lot of work on gas turbine cars in the '50s and '60s. They did in fact run at Le Mans. i read somewhere that the odd layout of the front suspension of the old Rover 2000 was to allow space for a future gas turbine powered version.

opinion guy

Methane

larchill

I've heard all this before. Back to the mid 70's oil crisis, we were all wondering what we'd be driving in 20 years. Its now almost 40 years later & we're still using the oul ICE! Much more efficient ones though. In 20 more years? they'll be even more efficient, & we'll have some other alternatives electric, hydrogen, ???

Joe 90

I'd be inclined to guess either ICE or electric battery. If fuel does become super expensive the cars themselves to become a lot smaller and lighter. Not cheaper because lighter costs. Think about size and weight. An original Issigonis Mini could take 4 people uncomfortably. So could an old two cylinder air cooled Fiat 500. A Costin Nathan Imp weighed about 400kgs. As someone said, these days people want something the size and weight of an old type transit to drive a coupe of people around. Power needed proportional to size and weight. Fuel, be it of the fossil or electric variety, consumption is proportional to power required.

kasper

google( ford nucleon) a concept car from ford usa in 1958

corkgsxr

Bpmull wrote: »

I'd imagine electric cars are the future as if Ireland converted 10 percent of its land to wind farms it would produce 80 kw per day per person of power currently each person uses 77kw of energy per day in ireland that's all in including transport heating and everything. It's amazing to think 10 percent of our land could provide all energy needs the thing is everything would have to be converted to electric including transport and heating etc. I'd say it will be at least 50 years before everything is converted to electrical. We don't even need nuclear power in Ireland anyway. Ireland is one of the few countries in the world that would have a low enough population density to be able to achieve enough energy just through wind power. Also when graphene technology is used in batteries it will make electric cars more practical. Ill say no more I don't want to bore people I think we will still have petrol and diesel car in 20 years time.

do ya know that for each kw of wind there has to be a plant making a kw as backup in case they dont produce. so wind energy is pointless its just a look how green we are while doing nothing. needs to be much more constant to be effective


and just batterys will never be a large portion of engines untill range is a real world 150-200 miles. and charge time is hour or so. and people have been saying its just round the corner for years. the advances we have that will give it are too expensive. it wont happen

Doc87

50 years time.....it will be Solar power all the way

corkgsxr

Doc87 wrote: »

50 years time.....it will be Solar power all the way

madder idea than batterys taking over

Sesshoumaru

corkgsxr wrote: »

do ya know that for each kw of wind there has to be a plant making a kw as backup in case they dont produce. so wind energy is pointless its just a look how green we are while doing nothing. needs to be much more constant to be effective


and just batterys will never be a large portion of engines untill range is a real world 150-200 miles. and charge time is hour or so. and people have been saying its just round the corner for years. the advances we have that will give it are too expensive. it wont happen

Automotive lithium battery packs are dropping relatively fast in cost

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-ev-battery-idUSBRE83G0EX20120417

http://www.caradvice.com.au/185266/lithium-ion-battery-price-dlithium-ion-battery-price-drop-to-make-hybrids-evs-cheaperrop-will-make-hybrids-evs-much-cheaper/

Bpmull

corkgsxr wrote: »

do ya know that for each kw of wind there has to be a plant making a kw as backup in case they dont produce. so wind energy is pointless its just a look how green we are while doing nothing. needs to be much more constant to be effective


and just batterys will never be a large portion of engines untill range is a real world 150-200 miles. and charge time is hour or so. and people have been saying its just round the corner for years. the advances we have that will give it are too expensive. it wont happen

I know Ireland could never completely rely on wind power I just thought it was an interesting fact. the graphene would seriously speed up the charging of the batterys as it is the most conductive material on the earth discovered so far. so much more conductive than lithium ion. they recently do an experiment and tested a standard lithium ion battery it took 200 minutes to charge. when they changed only the electrodes on the battery to graphene and left the rest of the battery lithium ion it charged to full in 10 minutes its amazing stuff. but unfortunatly we wont see graphene been used in batterys for at least 20 years.

corkgsxr

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Automotive lithium battery packs are dropping relatively fast in cost

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-ev-battery-idUSBRE83G0EX20120417

http://www.caradvice.com.au/185266/lithium-ion-battery-price-dlithium-ion-battery-price-drop-to-make-hybrids-evs-cheaperrop-will-make-hybrids-evs-much-cheaper/

Both articles are full of should's and probably's and maybes. Absolutely nothing definite. So useless

If the U.S military had not abandoned L.F.T.R or molten salt reactor back in the 70's we could have been driving on hydrogen years ago.

L.F.T.R is gaining momentum again though and the British, Americans and many others are starting to realise the tremendous benefits. The biggest of all is that a melt down isn't possible, I won't bore people about the other huge benefits, go research yourself, you will be baffled as to why the project was scrapped and the man who discovered it fired fro trying to promote it.

What's the point of it ? well Thorium is abundant and Norway alone has over 10,000 years supply of it and it can be used to generate electricity for heating, cars, and the production of hydrogen which takes massive amounts of energy.

Anyway, people should realise that hydrogen cars are electric but instead of a very large battery there is a much smaller one.

I think electric is the future, give more tax increases stricter emissions regulations and it's not hard to imagine electrics being a lot closer than people think. Wait until their is a war somewhere and oil shortages.

Electrics are good enough for most people but fast charging needs to be faster say 5-10 mins max, I don't think anyone could argue that a real 100-150 miles range is not suitable. No one needs 300-500 mile range if you can charge everywhere and charge fast, why carry a huge expensive battery when for 95+ % of the time you won't need it ?

Big Nasty

Deleted User wrote: »

L.F.T.R is gaining momentum again though and the British, Americans and many others are starting to realise the tremendous benefits. The biggest of all is that a melt down isn't possible, I won't bore people about the other huge benefits, go research yourself, you will be baffled as to why the project was scrapped and the man who discovered it fired fro trying to promote it.

Know nothing about it but I would imagine the oil barons had a big part to play in it being quashed.

corkgsxr

Deleted User wrote: »

If the U.S military ..............aller one.

I think electric is the future, give more tax increases stricter emissions regulations and it's not hard to imagine electrics being a lot closer than people think. Wait until their is a war somewhere and oil shortages.

Electrics are good enough for most people but fast charging needs to be faster say 5-10 mins max, I don't think anyone could argue that a real 100-150 miles range is not suitable. No one needs 300-500 mile range if you can charge everywhere and charge fast, why carry a huge expensive battery when for 95+ % of the time you won't need it ?

one if electric cars start getting a hefty % of the market the government will increase there road tax with some other excuse.

the government doesnt give a flying about the emissions of your car. carbon tax is just a easy way to push percentage onto road tax.


150-200 would be a good range. that means if you want to go cork dublin or cork galway etc. itll take ya at least half way. them you can stop for lunch and plug it in for half a hour to charge it up (again why you need short charge times)

like todays ones if they say range 120 miles. realistically thats 80-90 miles, need wipers, lights, aircon, radio etc they all eat into it. you could end up with a 60 mile range and 8 hour charge. load of bollix at the mo

positron

It's not what is going to power the cars, but it's how the cars are going to behave is what is going change in next 30-50 years.

That is intelligent cars - autonomous driving machines - that you can configure to take you to your destination. The benefits of taking the human being away from steering wheel is many fold. Imagine if all the cars will drive as part of a grid and automatically take the safest route, speed distance etc, the whole traffic will be A LOT faster, yet A LOT safer. And in turn cars can be made ever more efficient ditching all the heavy safety bars and what not, and the cars would become an extension of your house / office (as you configure it to your choice), so you would not waste any more time driving or worrying about road surfaces or anything like that. Imagine the car docked to your home - you literally walk into the seat that's in the car, and your mere presence there will trigger the car to undock, lock away the port of the house and close the hatch/port on the car, and pull away gently and joins the dedicated super fast autonomous motor vehicle grid, and when you are near your destination, car would detach itself from the grid and guide itself to your destination car park etc - all of which would be pre-programmed in your personal phone / communication device, which at that stage is probably physically embedded into you, probably using some sort of neural sensory set up so that you can control it with your thoughts.. okay this is starting to sound a bit scary now.... but as they say, the future is coming on...

What ever fuel is most suitable to the above model - probably electricity - is what is going to be the type of propulsion for future cars.

keithclancy

corkgsxr wrote: »

one if electric cars start getting a hefty % of the market the government will increase there road tax with some other excuse.

the government doesnt give a flying about the emissions of your car. carbon tax is just a easy way to push percentage onto road tax.


150-200 would be a good range. that means if you want to go cork dublin or cork galway etc. itll take ya at least half way. them you can stop for lunch and plug it in for half a hour to charge it up (again why you need short charge times)

like todays ones if they say range 120 miles. realistically thats 80-90 miles, need wipers, lights, aircon, radio etc they all eat into it. you could end up with a 60 mile range and 8 hour charge. load of bollix at the mo

I'd prefer if all that money was invested in a decent train service imo.

Solair

corkgsxr wrote: »

do ya know that for each kw of wind there has to be a plant making a kw as backup in case they dont produce. so wind energy is pointless its just a look how green we are while doing nothing. needs to be much more constant to be effective


and just batterys will never be a large portion of engines untill range is a real world 150-200 miles. and charge time is hour or so. and people have been saying its just round the corner for years. the advances we have that will give it are too expensive. it wont happen

Yeah, but in Ireland the wind blows almost all the time, so while you would still need conventional power plants, you wouldn't be running them nearly as much thus you'd be burning very little fuel.

Building the plants and maintaining them is a relatively minor inconvenience as we already have most of what we need in place with a fleet of relatively high-tech, modern combined cycle gas turbine plants and also a couple of oil + a coal plant. Gas turbines can react quite quickly to peaking demands / low wind power too giving a lot of flexibility.

Having lots of wind would just mean we don't have to import a huge amount of oil/gas which would immediately mean our balance of trade would shift very significantly in our favour and our CO2 outputs would fall.

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

If the U.S military had not abandoned L.F.T.R or molten salt reactor back in the 70's we could have been driving on hydrogen years ago.

L.F.T.R is gaining momentum again though and the British, Americans and many others are starting to realise the tremendous benefits. The biggest of all is that a melt down isn't possible, I won't bore people about the other huge benefits, go research yourself, you will be baffled as to why the project was scrapped and the man who discovered it fired fro trying to promote it.

the massive list of disadvantage on wikipedia is probably is reasonable starting point of explanation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages

September1

I think most progress could be made in automating flow of cars and getting rid of drivers. This would increase safety, economy and efficiency of transport system. Just think about how many times you were stuck in traffic while lanes in opposite direction were empty... Current system is under utilizing resources. No idea on propulsion but I suspect that we would have even bigger mix of fuels than now.

keithclancy

September1 wrote: »

I think most progress could be made in automating flow of cars and getting rid of drivers. This would increase safety, economy and efficiency of transport system. Just think about how many times you were stuck in traffic while lanes in opposite direction were empty... Current system is under utilizing resources. No idea on propulsion but I suspect that we would have even bigger mix of fuels than now.

Rush hour variable speed limits ftw.
Frustrating on German Autobahn that doesn't have one since everyone speeding up and slowing down creates the phantom jam in the first place.

Its really when trrying to go faster makes everyone travel more slowly, waste more fuel and increase the risk of an accident.

http://www.sartre-project.eu/en/Sidor/default.aspx
This would be the next best step rather than having fully automated cars.

corkgsxr

Solair wrote: »

Yeah, but in Ireland the wind blows almost all the time, so while you would still need conventional power plants, you wouldn't be running them nearly as much thus you'd be burning very little fuel.

Building the plants and maintaining them is a relatively minor inconvenience as we already have most of what we need in place with a fleet of relatively high-tech, modern combined cycle gas turbine plants and also a couple of oil + a coal plant. Gas turbines can react quite quickly to peaking demands / low wind power too giving a lot of flexibility.

Having lots of wind would just mean we don't have to import a huge amount of oil/gas which would immediately mean our balance of trade would shift very significantly in our favour and our CO2 outputs would fall.

wind is never constant no matter where you go. it might blow all the time but how hard. you could never power the world by wind or solar. theres just not enough space. there output is too low. its nuclear we should go for power

and btw its ireland that has the per kw backup for wind.