Author Topic: Best energy storage system for vehicles... (Read 1338 times)

finnsawyer · « **Reply #33 on:** September 14, 2004, 11:57:01 AM »

I didn't mention that I work with a portable sawmill and can commute 50 miles round trip many days. For obvious reasons right now I use a 4 wheel drive pickup. Those little cars aren't much use for us yankees.

Tyler883 · « **Reply #34 on:** September 14, 2004, 10:16:38 PM »

The best energy storage system is a flawed idea. Our best solution is to look towards several solutions and exploit differnet technologies to their maximum.

cheers

Tyler

thunderhead · « **Reply #35 on:** September 15, 2004, 02:22:16 AM »

That's OK: larger cars are actually more efficient per unit weight than smaller ones, because of the cube-square law. They have less wetted area per weight.

Pickups don't tend to mind being loaded with batteries, since their suspensions are designed to carry weight. Many homebrew EV designs are based on pickups, because they are so easy. And if you like 4WD, then put a motor on each wheel instead of each front wheel.

I commute between 35 and 55 miles a day too, depending on the route I take, and I'm no Yankee. That's just possible with my E-bay surplus AGMs, but would be easy with lithiums, that should do 200+ miles per charge. The 70 lithiums plus four 35kW (46hp) AVT motors would come to 433kg (970lbs) which is not much more than your ICE and transmission, I suspect. Maybe 180hp would be less than you are used to, but I'm sure it would be sufficient for your needs.

The only difference really is my $6.00/gallon for fuel, which is why I have no doubt about it being a good idea. But you will have the $6.00 gallon soon enough, whichever way you vote in November. The oil is running out. :-( :-( :-(

thunderhead · « **Reply #36 on:** September 15, 2004, 02:40:26 AM »

The best energy storage system is a flawed idea. Our best solution is to look towards several solutions and exploit differnet technologies to their maximum.

I think you're right - and technology will change the answer every few years anyway. My opinion (as if you couldn't guess) is that lithium batteries offer the best solution to urban, short-to-medium range (less than 250 miles) automotive travel over the next ten years.

I think that the two solutions being pushed by the popular press - biodiesel and hydrogen - both have terrible problems, either with safety (hydrogen), with consumption of natural resources (hydrogen is made from petrochemicals, biodiesel uses land, fertiliser and water), or with pollution (biodiesel is no better for emissions than dinosaur diesel).

My belief is that we need to move towards electricity generated from renewable sources to provide most of our energy needs. My belief is that the best source of renewable electricity will ultimately be satellite solar power, probably augmented with offshore and local-scale wind and maybe, just maybe, with PV panels, if they ever lose an order of magnitude in price and gain an order of magnitude in lifetime.

The energy that industrial nations like ours use is generally 1/3 domestic, 1/3 industrial, and 1/3 transportation. That is one reason why EVs are considered to be a threat to the grid - if the whole population switches to EVs, they need to beef it up by 50%. But although I believe that cars of the future must ultimately be charged by electricity, that does not mean the energy needs to be stored in electrochemical batteries: advances in materials technology may make compressed air viable; advances in fuel cells might replace hydrogen with something safer; or something might come along that none of us have heard of.

But for me, today, wanting to reduce my dependency on petrochemicals, an EV is the practical answer to my particular transport problem. That is a solution for a particular place-and-time, though, not a solution for all time.

finnsawyer · « **Reply #37 on:** September 15, 2004, 09:54:50 AM »

I think you're missing the point here. America is vast. Most goods are transported by truck. We need a system of vehicles that can travel a long distance in 14 hours to keep our economy going. Batteries won't cut it. I'm skeptical about fuel cells. As far as the oil running out, that story's been out there for a generation. Maybe or maybe not. As I travel around this land I see a lot of pumpers sitting idle. As the price goes up many of these will be brought online. I suppose we could go back to large, light coal fired steam locomotives as we've got lots of coal. Trouble is, the railroads retired those as fast as they could once diesel locomotives were developed. The real key is usable energy. Other forms may become available such as space based systems capturing sunlight.

thunderhead · « **Reply #38 on:** September 15, 2004, 10:13:34 AM »

Once you start talking about moving goods, you have the possibility of using railways. The main reason why I oppose forcing all citizens to use public transport is because the motor car has been a great boon for personal freedom. I approve of personal freedom and I don't want to give it up. But a consignment of fridge-freezers doesn't care about personal freedom, and has no rights. It can take the train.

Most of Europe has electrified railways. Europe is not significantly smaller than the USA, and has a larger economy and population. The railway electrification is now being standardised to a single system to allow international freight. Electrified railways can easily run on renewable energy. That is one of their biggest advantages.

My brother works in leading edge oil prospecting, and he does not expect the oil to literally run out, but to become so much more expensive that nobody would consider actually burning it. That will happen Real Soon Now. For some time the recovery techniques have become better and better, but there is a thing called the Law of Diminishing Returns. Although maybe 50% of the oil remains, it is the 50% that is harder and more expensive to extract. What is more, the demand for oil is steeply rising, as other countries in the world - China, for instance - demand to live the same sort of lives as we live in Europe and the USA.

finnsawyer · « **Reply #39 on:** September 15, 2004, 11:13:22 AM »

I've got no problem with electrified railways. The problem is where to get the juice? As I've suggested in the past, space based collection is one non polluting option. There's a 4 billion year source there going on 24/7. I believe it's technically feasible today. One possible development path is to use the process to send ion powered space craft to Mars. Beam microwaves to the craft, convert them to 1 million volts dc and get to mars in weeks not months.

thunderhead · « **Reply #40 on:** September 16, 2004, 03:20:18 AM »

I agree with you on the satellite solar power.

So do NASA:-

http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/

Unfortunately it appears your government don't share our opinions.

The House of Representatives were presented with NASA's findings on 7 September 2000, and since then it appears two things have happened, one of which is sometimes called "Jack".

:-(

But your government did do something to secure future energy supplies - they invaded Iraq.

:-( :-( :-(

Can I suggest you write to your local politician?

chux0r · « **Reply #41 on:** September 16, 2004, 08:05:56 PM »

I'm sorry.... "wood asses?"

finnsawyer · « **Reply #42 on:** September 18, 2004, 12:27:41 PM »

Naw, you can't trust the b....... anyway.

spenniec · « **Reply #43 on:** September 21, 2004, 11:29:55 PM »

pdvjak

I'd be interested in hearing more of your ideas on using compressed air for storage, more for home use than automotive as I don't plan on relying on them as long as I have two legs and two wheels. I live in Wellington, New Zealand and am in the early stages of researching alternative power technologies for when I move and go completely off grid. I have only just discovered the concept of CAES on a large scale with the power plants in Germany and the US and have been looking for more ideas on how that could be implemented that on a small scale. I like the idea of using simple technologies to achieve that sustainable lifestyle.

LEXX · « **Reply #44 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:16:14 PM »

I personally feel that if your way of life depends on driving 100 miles a day, you better change fast. There truely is no way to produce the amount of energy that is needed to keep people travelling the way they have been over the last several decades, today's 50.00 price tag on a barrel of oil is proof of it! We have been exploiting an energy source that took millions of years to accumulate and it is going to run out fairly soon, the fact that we will have drained it all in such a period of time is frankly scary! Biodiesel is a good idea but how many people are going to starve because of growing fuel instead of food? Not trying to be too pessimistic but you better get comfortable with your surroundings, oh yeah, anyone ever heard of an industrial electric smelter? Driving around is not the most pressing of matters!

LEXX

thunderhead · « **Reply #45 on:** September 27, 2004, 11:49:21 PM »

If you want to use a battery electric vehicle to drive 100 miles a day, your consumption (for my car, not for some SUV) is going to be something between 15kWh and 25kWh per day. That would approximately double my electricity bill.

Now yes, I should make economies (and yes, I am working on it, using some of the ideas on this board) but although a homebrewed electricity system that generates 25kWh per day is large, it's not beyond the people here, I'm sure. Three windmills that generated 350W each in a 6.5kt wind would be fine for where I live. They're big, but they're not impossibly so.

One of the things I think is great about what goes on here is that people are using their ingenuity to continue to enjoy the lives we all want, without the big environmental impacts of typical Western consumption. That is an inspiration to us all - it proves that we don't have to go back to the Stone Age when the oil runs out.

LEXX · « **Reply #46 on:** September 28, 2004, 07:19:59 PM »

I'm with you man, but the problem isn't going to be solved by people like us. The real problem is the (about) 250 million people who live in big cities in north america alone who have no idea how to do most things for themselves. How many things did your grandfather know how to do that you don't that were life skills for a planet with fewer services? I'll bet alot. Not calling you down or anything, we are inundated by people who (for a price) help us to do pretty much everything and each time we chose to let someone else do our thinking for us it's another thing which we are less capable of. You talk about your electricity bill like it's the only electricity you use, it's not, have you ever seen the power distribution systems for a supermarket? They're massive, a good sized one will be around 2500 Amps, and it's you and me and everybody else using it. Anyways, end of rant, carry on.

LEXX

thunderhead · « **Reply #47 on:** September 30, 2004, 01:53:16 AM »

The supermarket where my wife used to work when she was working through college used to take over a million quid a week. If the shopper spend an average of £50 a shop, they see 20,000 people through their doors every week - about 3,000 a day. The net energy use of a supermarket per customer isn't that high - if the customers turn out the lights before they leave, it's probably a saving to have them there, because their density is higher and they are under flourescent lamps, not incandescent ones.

The way I understand it, the energy use of a Westerner can be broken into three about-equal thirds: domestic; transport; and industrial. If the Western world was to generate all domestic and transport energy near their homes, from renewable sources, our non-renewable energy use would fall by over 60%. If the price of energy triples, then the result will be a cost-of-living that has not changed, without altering industrial processes at all.

As the price of PV panels falls, we're seeing more and more local renewable generation here in Britain. Grid generation of electricity is almost exclusively windmills, (and about a tenth of our energy use) but I've seen PV and windmills on both schools and supermarkets within twenty miles of my home in a London suburb.

Most people don't want to think, yes, but they do want to continue with the lifestyles they enjoy. If the only way they are able to do so is to buy electric cars, windmills, and PV panels, they will. The Soviets discovered that getting people to do what you want with guns and tanks results in attrition, terrorism, and passive resistance: the occupying armies in the Middle East will discover the same thing. Then the voters will demand alternatives - and they will get them.

When that happens the technology you people are proving today will be taken up by commercial engineers and offered to the masses. When oil and grid electricity costs as much as it soon will, the masses will buy.

The middle classes among them will congratulate themselves for their intelligence and sensitivity for being "early adopters", of course.

LEXX · « **Reply #48 on:** September 30, 2004, 07:25:09 AM »

Very valid points thunderhead, though I think you are taking your situation (judging from your use of quid you're in england) and applying it to others. I live in a small city of about 12,000 people and it has 4 supermarkets, I doubt that they each get 20,000 people per week, that aside, I really didn't mean to say that was going to ruin us all by it's self, I was merely pointing out that people use way more power than they think. When a prospective car buyer is about to buy a car he or she is buying a lot of fuel and electricity right off the hop, it takes a lot of energy to make a car, from the smelter for the steel, the plastic is made from non-renewables, the production line needs to be run and heated, right down to the coffee maker in the staff room at the plant, it takes a lot of energy. The real problem is that the system we have in place is utterly dependant on non-renewable energy sources (I personally live in British Columbia so am a little less in debt to oil for electricty but I need to drive, so...) and it's about to get expensive. Oh yeah, do you really see the 30 to 40 floor apartment buildings in many of the large cities being able to supply their tenents with enough solar energy?

LEXX

thunderhead · « **Reply #49 on:** October 01, 2004, 04:57:03 AM »

Yes, I'm in England for now: I live a few miles outside London, in one of the most crowded places in Europe. We don't have those 30 or 40 floor apartment buildings very many places. We do have one of the highest population densities for a nation of our land area, but mostly we avoid "high-rise". People hate them, so developers don't make so many.

I don't know exactly how much industrial energy is used to supply my needs, but I'd guess from the fact that my transport and domestic energy uses are about the same, my industrial is probably also about the same, fitting that 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 I was describing. But industrial energy is a lot easier to provide than transport energy, since factories stay in one place.

The real problem with the energy supply for transport is this:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3701486.stm

I guess that's why the best traction batteries come from China.

LEXX · « **Reply #50 on:** October 02, 2004, 07:17:47 AM »

Yup, the amazing thing to me is that China is the second largest user, they have 1.15 million people there and growing fast. I'm not quite sure when they'll be #1 but should be soon. I was reading a report from one of the middle east oil companys and one of the CEOs were quoted as say that fairly soon the time would come to tell thses huge countries that there really was not enough oil for them, and his biggest wish was to not to have to be the one to say it. what happens when the world is unsustainable? Like you say most energy is easy to come by such as home electricity but the smelter is the one thing that always sticks in my mind as futureless. When all these different hydrocarbons are running out there won't be sensible people to call a halt to the stupidity in government, look what your gov. and america's have achieved over in Irac. I know it's pretty doom and gloom but to me it's a guarantee. Try reading a book called BEYOND THE LIMITS, it's about the corellation of all our resources (not just oil) running out, you'll find it pretty interesting.

LEXX

boflaade · « **Reply #51 on:** October 16, 2004, 12:50:48 AM »

I've gone through all this before in the 80's same words and same warnings. Here we are again in the horsepower race with bigger vehicles capable of pulling locamotives. Things that have changed is the market for North Americas wheat has reduced. Underdeveloped countries have been taught and given the tools to grow there own food.

China has now been introduced to the Western concept of living and North American Vehicle manufacturers as well as the Japanese manufacturers are jumping on the band wagon. Soon the Chinese will be demanding same day service and the railway will be getting less business then the trucking agencies.

I know of many Alberta cattle farmers that would eagerly get a wheat quota if they could. Biodiesel, methane or alchol can be an excellent alternative to a lot of farmers.

thunderhead · « **Reply #52 on:** October 17, 2004, 07:20:44 AM »

Biodiesel is not hard to make. If it is economic, they can do it: large parts of the country near my place of birth are bright yellow each summer, as they grow rapeseed oil crops. When it becomes economic, they will grow it.

However, biodiesel doesn't help us with city pollution.

It also may be considerably harder to grow crops soon, as the climate changes due to CO2 build-up. There is some evidence emerging of an accelerating rate of climate change. It may turn out that we need all that land to grow enough food.

finnsawyer · « **Reply #53 on:** October 17, 2004, 11:55:26 AM »

While the 25 kwhr per day will increase your electric bill it will considerably reduce your driving bill. Even at 30 mpg, 100 miles a day is over $6.00 for gas versus about $2.00 for grid electricity. Let's see 15,000 miles a year at 20 mpg and $2.00 gas comes out to $1500 a year. If I could knock that down to $500 with electric, I could afford a $10,000 - $20,000 investment in a wind power system. Oh well, there are other factors.

LEXX · « **Reply #54 on:** October 17, 2004, 07:00:14 PM »

Like I said above, you sould really read BEYOND THE LIMITS, we about to hit a roadblock.

LEXX

stet · « **Reply #55 on:** November 21, 2004, 02:20:26 AM »

Actually I don't really understand the need to use stored energy to move vehicles.... It would seem with a few bushells of Corn and some heat and water .... we could generate enough electricty...for some actual combustion to move things around and have RENEWABLE fuel.... Why do we continue to waste time talking about exotic stuff when any veg. matter can be used to make some nice fuel. VERY renewable every year and corn for example is avail. by the ton in almost every part of the US year round?

PLEASE tell me why ....

K3CZ · « **Reply #56 on:** December 14, 2004, 07:24:46 AM »

Biodiesel (or methane , for that matter) appears to be the best match for current transportation technology, but like all biomass-based energy sources, where is Mother Earth going to grow the plant resources necessary to support our current transportation-intensive lifestyle?

Not to mention, the CO2 problem is still there, and excess heat production. There simply is not enuf arable land on the face of this planet to support that level of biomass generation and feed 6 billion plus bodies, as well.

A more efficient method of concentrating solar energy into a portable energy form might help, but we are talking millions(billions?) of acres of solar energy collection, here. Either we need to reduce our transportation energy consumption by a factor of ten or so, or reduce the worlds population to a sustainable 1 billion or so, or both. Oh, well, thats for the next generations to solve; I'm 72!

K3CZ

hiker · « **Reply #57 on:** December 18, 2004, 03:35:03 AM »

i think its time for pepole to take a hike or bike--the USA has more fat pepole than any other country---time to burn some FAT...............................

rbki25 · « **Reply #58 on:** December 21, 2004, 11:08:16 AM »

For those of you who consider air power a farce, keep in mind that it wasn't long ago that the most powerful engines on land and sea were nothing more than compressed air- they called it steam. Steam Locomotives used coal and wood, but who said that's the only one way to heat water? Granted, water weighs quite a bit, but it's cheap (if not free), and perfect for ships and okay for trains. As for steam cars, it isn't safe enough, burns are the worst possible car accident injuries and steam won't stay in a ruptured tank.

As for compressed air cars, proper engineering can make air tank ruptures safer than fuel fires ever were. It could be peppy enough for U.S. consumers someday.

In any case, the only way we as individuals can truly be independent is if we can make fuel ourselves. Compressed air, and steam are the only fuel systems I know of where you're not depending on anyone else... How would you boil water cheaply?

earthshaker · « **Reply #59 on:** January 05, 2005, 07:40:39 PM »

Can you tell I am from Nebraska, the CORNhusker state, I voted alcohol, a good deal for all involved IMHO.

bludger · « **Reply #60 on:** January 21, 2005, 01:12:08 PM »

Was looking for a mains charger info in middle of night and found this site.

and i got to thinking after completing 'best fuel poll' about the best energy conversion system for the "EV" i'll build one day...maybe wishful thinking.

being in the electrical buis and looking at the postings a thread stuck in my mind from the info i'd collected.

Maybe the simplest system for energy conversion is similar to the storage system different materials but a common simple thread, a material giveing the maximum surface area in the minimum space for conversion might be the best fuel and storage medium.

FUEL INPUT- not my area and so not a good one to start with, e.g. hydrocarbon were the hydrogen is exposed to the maximum contact area of carbon within the molecule.

might be somthing to do with energy density, not a chemist, worst luck.

CONVERSION SYSTEM- e.g fuel cell, were there is a maximum internal contact area for the fuel to give up its charge to electrical energy.

ENERGY STORAGE MEDIUM- complimentary battery/capacitor system

(high voltage - low current, high current -low voltage) where there is a maximum surface area of chemicals in the minimum space to convert the electrical energy to a chemical charge and back.

Two substances where atomically they have the largest available contact area to react together to change state, like the super capacitor, maximum exposed suface.

Could be simple physics as well, don't know did'nt do a degree.

Maybe the theory is full of holes.

Might be some use to express or could just be the ranting of an insomniac in the mid of the night.

Yawn back to bed or a coffee hmmm?

Dont know Bludger.

SolidHydro · « **Reply #61 on:** January 27, 2005, 01:59:29 PM »

I do not see "Solid Hydrogen" in the poll. I asume it was the hydrogen choice. I'd say it will very quickly be Solid Hydrogen and/or Hydrino Hydride(battery).

http://www.blacklight.com <Hydrino Hydride

SolidHydro · « **Reply #62 on:** January 27, 2005, 02:12:37 PM »

Scratch that link, here it is.....

http://www.blacklightpower.com

USVIGuy · « **Reply #63 on:** February 08, 2005, 09:24:20 PM »

The bigger issue with oil based petroleum, is the rapidly increasing consumption in the rest of the world. Currently, there is an immense amount of wealth growing in both China and India. With this exploding middle class, you have hundereds of millions of people, that will be moving from buggies, bicycles and walking, to motorized scooters, motorcycles and automobiles.

America needs to get ready for $4.00+ a gallon fuel. Not because the world is running out, which is a ridiculous notion, but because the demand will be skyrocketing over the next decade.

Coal is our best solution in the short term. There are several companies that make a "Bio-Diesel" from coal. The cost is still signficantly higher than refined diesel but that will soon change. Increased production and better technology will bring the cost in-line and make it a viable alternative to refined diesel.

plantiful · « **Reply #64 on:** February 15, 2005, 06:01:03 AM »

Where will the energy come from to make this 'alternative fuel'? In order to reverse the chemical reaction, it will take in more energy than the fuel itself will provide, since few chemical reactions actually approach 100% yield. Also, everytime the form of energy changes, there are losses. The Electric Vehicles that are (were) being promoted in the United States (see tax code), actually are more wasteful than they appear: oil is burned to produce mechanical energy at the power station, the mechanical energy is then converted into electricity (magnets), transmission of electicity, then in the battery it is converted back into chamical energy. During use, the chemical energy int the battery is turned into electricity, and then finally mechanical energy to move the car. Twice as much fuel is probably (just a guess) consumed by the time the car actually gets to move compared to a regular gasoline-powered car.

Hydrogen is a good, safe storage medium for energy: if it leaks, it goes straight up into the atmosphere (see http://www.3nw.com/energy/hydrogen_car_fire_surprise.htm) whereas gasoline leaks under objects and then ignites them. It can be produced using Solar Thermal energy, which has greater efficiency than electrolysis (see http://www.shec-labs.com). These guys are using a metal catalyst to separate the water at a lower temperature (~600C) than without the catalyst (~2000C).

Dave L · « **Reply #65 on:** February 23, 2005, 03:11:37 PM »

I don't know if the world running out of fuel is a ridiculous notion or not. The law of supply and demand is pretty hard to get around. My understanding of the "Peak Oil" situation is limited but it does seem to me that the problem is real, especially considering the development of India's and China's appetites.

For the transportation of goods and human travel, coal as a source of bio-diesel may prove a viable alternative to refined petroleum, however, it does not address the environmental impact that burning fossil fuels will always have.

I'm the worst kind of yankee, I grew up in the southwest where you may have to drive 15 miles each way just to visit the grocery store. A "decent" shopping trip meant a 400 mile round trip to Albuquerque. As important as the issues being discussed here are, we also have to address our habits. When we are forced by necessity to use the car only occasionally, and mass transit for virtually all longer distances, we'll all (well most of us) look back at today in amazement at how pathetic our attempts at conservation have been.

News:

Author Topic: Best energy storage system for vehicles... (Read 1338 times)