green vehicle thread [Archive]

curiously undead

January 12th, 2008, 04:31

hopefully within the next year i'll finally purchase my first new car, been driving fifteen years already. been wanting a prius for more than a few years now, but i may go all out and get an electric vehicle, or even spring for a conversion. a small suv hybrid or straight electric is what my dream car would be anyhow.
if i had a bit more mechanical savy, and it wasn't a fairly heirloom i'd love to convert my ghia like this guy and others i've seen.
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/624745
one for sale even
http://www.austinev.org/evtradinpost/index.php?method=showdetails&list=advertisement&rollid=1710&fromfromlist=classifiedscategory&fromfrommethod=showhtmllist&fromfromid=17

this article caught my eye. (prius pounds the explorer) its extra special too because ford is one of my top 5 least favourite companies.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/ToyotaPriusSalesPassFordExplorer.aspx

dteowner

January 12th, 2008, 04:56

I'll give you credit, CU, you walk the walk.

magerette

January 12th, 2008, 08:28

Coincidentally, my husband and I were actually looking at the Prius ( I can't quite write Priuses with a straight face and Pri-ii is worse) at the Toyota dealership today when we were picking up our repaired old Toyota T-100--they're nice looking and apparently quite as dependable as a gasoline powered version. Unfortunately, the retirement income bracket doesn't allow for the price range of *any* new Toyota and our old ones run just fine so no conversion for us at this point.

That's a nice looking Ghia--do you see many of those on the streets in California? they're long gone from around here, green or otherwise. :)

curiously undead

January 12th, 2008, 08:57

thanks dte-i'd say i'm more crawling the walk at this point. but it is my goal to walk upright someday. my wife spends hours a week taking stuff from her work (she runs the kitchen at a posh cafe) and bringing it to be recycled at our apartment complex.

actually magerette there's around four or five just within a few mile radius of where i live that i know of. california i'd say has probrably around 80% of all ghias but that's really an baseless guess. my ghia has been in the family for over 40 years seen about 5 paint jobs, and who knows how many rebuilds (my grandfather was a mechanic/inventor).- when my dad and i rebuilt it with minor help from my brother and mom in high school we dissassembled every piece and put it back together, everything except the engine itself and the paintjob we did ouselves including the upholstrey. i did the electrical wiring myself, but i did have an exhaustive manual, which unfortunately i find highly unlikely exists for an electric car conversion...maybe someday.

txa1265

January 12th, 2008, 12:03

I bought the Ford Escape Hybrid ('08 model) last year, and have been very much enjoying trying to drive in a way that maximizes mileage. We have been doing our best to 'minimize our footprint' for several years, and this is another step.

Prime Junta

January 12th, 2008, 12:15

Currently the most ecological car would be the smallest diesel that fits your needs.

A hybrid like the Prius, for example, is such a complex beast that the ecological footprint of making one pretty much cancels out the fuel economy over its lifetime. It makes a statement, though, even if the statement is "I don't know what 'fungible' means." ;)

However, even better would be to find ways to minimize driving in the first place. Move close to your workplace, preferably somewhere the services are within walking distance. Commute by bicycle. Use public transport if available. If you minimize your driving, keeping your old car may be the most ecological solution, since manufacturing a new one isn't without its cost.

We drive a 1996 Volkswagen Polo, and average about 3000 km (2000 mi) a year on it. I commute to work by bike, on foot, or with the metro; my wife takes the bus. We live right in the center of the city, so we shop on foot. We only need to drive to the family's country cabin, about 100 km away, as well as any other outings we do.

Unfortunately for our eco-lifestyle, all of that is probably canceled out by our biggest eco-vice -- air travel. We typically fly somewhere on leisure two or three times a year, and on business at least as often.

Corwin

January 12th, 2008, 12:52

When Merc releases a green car, I'll think about it!! :)

GothicGothicness

January 12th, 2008, 13:07

Prime Junta

January 12th, 2008, 13:46

When Merc releases a green car, I'll think about it!! :)

They have. The Mercedes A160 CDI is about as green as it gets these days.

curiously undead

January 12th, 2008, 17:27

moving close to work isn't an option when you and your spouse work fifteen miles apart. removing a car from an equation altogether isn't practical, especially for most living in america.

also the using electricity argument is not one i agree with either, especially considering where i live most of the area is under smud which is one of the countries best public utilities, lower than average rates, and they get quite a bit from renewable energy and are constantly improving.

i mean i wouldn't mind having a solar car for that matter either...but at this stage all i've been able to afford is little solar chargers that can charge my cell phone and my rechargable batteries (which i highly recommend getting as some of the high quality ones give you more juice than standard batteries and they last a long time as well)

for me i don't think forcing public transportation cycling on everyone will ever work. some people inherently get more joy and have situations that ease those options much more than others. to me that philosophy is like the 'dentons' philosophy in deus ex:invisible war--"for everyones benefit, but free choice and desenting opinions are irrelevent"

i had a good bike that i loved to ride along the river, it however was stolen a few years ago, a few months after my car along with all my hockey gear (all uninsured)
was swiped as well. life happens though, found a ten-speed which someone was tossing, bought new tires, handlebar and seat but the bike still was not for me. someday i'll be able to afford a bike again, maybe when i do live closer to work, but hockey was my passion and although more expensive it is worth someday recouping.

edit:biodiesel/diesel is really not a green source in the big picture folks. there's plenty of articles/research to refute it as a path to a substantially cleaner future. in addition the noise pollution from diesel is insane and if everyone had one...
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/02/biofuel.debate/

for over 8 years i've had the idea that frictionless pneumatic tubing of some sort would not only be the way to go to get the demon semis off the road but also in theory similar tubes could be used for mass transit though i'm sure this would take years to even start, in my opinion its large overhauls like this to the transportation/shipping world that need to occur just like railroads during the nineteenth century.

edit markII:
i highly recommend this dvd set-its finally come out and i've been waiting a few years since since i caught some of them on television. basically an australian team, fronted by a man and his dog, go 16,000 miles across american all on 'alternative fuel'--its informational and highly entertaining--too bad the show never hit the mainstream.
http://www.coolfuelroadtripstore.com/dvd--full-set--all-4-edition.html

magerette

January 12th, 2008, 20:29

On the green subject, heres a little clip on eco-friendly TVs @ the CES. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/01/11/eco.tv/index.html)

Prime Junta

January 12th, 2008, 20:33

No fossil fuel is a green source in the big picture. However, there isn't any non-fossil fuel based car available right now. Of the options that are available, diesel is the lesser evil. Your article was about biofuels, btw, and not diesels.

Modern diesels aren't noisy, either. There's really no way to tell the difference just by looking, driving, or listening to it either. My parents have a diesel car; I've driven it a fair bit, and it's quite nice.

Europe is going diesel big-time, and it's working out fine.

Ten miles is a perfectly reasonable bike commute, btw (assuming you're about halfway between your and your spouses office). But you do have to make the effort to get started.

curiously undead

January 13th, 2008, 01:31

how is an electic car if its charged by solar polar not non-fossil fuel. i've been following the work in california for quite a while now on the plug-in hybrids though at the moment that's even further out of my price range. good site www.calcars.org

actually she's a mile or so and i'm about 15. though thats on the freeway. surface streets would take even longer, theres a university to bypass as well as only a few routes to cross the river and overall i refuse to ride a bike on streets where the speed limit is 40 plus. its a nice thought an all but an hour commute each way every day would be worth twice the little i make. and again i don't really like bike riding that much. been hit a couple of times, and i'm frightened enough in my tiny auto as it is.
if i lived closer to work and somewhere more temperate like seattle or perhaps finland;) but the sun and me aint friends and theres far to much 100+ weather in the summer here. at least i can take credit for sweating on the commute home as my car lacks a/c:)

Prime Junta

January 13th, 2008, 01:53

how is an electic car if its charged by solar polar not non-fossil fuel. i've been following the work in california for quite a while now on the plug-in hybrids though at the moment that's even further out of my price range. good site www.calcars.org

That would certainly be more ecological than diesel. If that's a realistic option for you, go for it. For most people it isn't, though.

I'm not trying to guilt you into cycle-commuting: I know that it's not a practical option everywhere nor for everybody; however, for some people and some places it's definitely an option worth exploring. (It's only practical here part of the year.)

GothicGothicness

January 13th, 2008, 02:00

removing a car from an equation altogether isn't practical, especially for most living in america.

Sadly we have to stop thinking like that, however it is not only the peoples fault there isn't any public transportation / better choice so it almost forces some people to take a car. I took a course on global warming at uni for 5 credits with some of the best researches in the field ( one of them got the nobel prize ) After this course I am scared.

How could we be so stupid? we had the technology to build cars that consumes like 0.2 l / 10 km ( sorry USA people do not know your measurements ) and instead of using these car we make an average of 1 l / 10 km so we can have better acceleration, more powerful engine and more accidents. On top of that when we need to reduce global warming the most.... a indian car company presents a car for $2000 so that the 300 million people in india (middle class ) can get cars! This earth is truly doomed and most of us humans are too lazy or stupid to do anything about it!

magerette

January 13th, 2008, 05:34

I think the bike commute concept is an excellent one where practical. Unfortunately many cities in the US ( and elsewhere for all I know) aren't laid out in a way to make it possible for a truly significant number of people right now--cars have enabled the ever-expanding rings of bedroom communities where many Americans now live, and moving back to within ten miles of your job would require that everything flip flop. All those developed communities would then house who? The inner city would have to become a kinder, gentler place. Industry moving to the communities would just create a new cycle of displacement. It's a snarled mess.

I like the idea of public transportation coupled with varying and flexible business models that allow more people to work from their homes, and more electronic records, fewer paper records, etc. Of course, this presupposes that generating electricity can be done in a cleaner way as time goes on.

Or back to the bike and walking concept, I'd like to see a return to people shopping, working and conducting their lives in smaller areas, as when I grew up. It isn't only greener, it's a better social construct. In Chicago in the fifties and sixties, the working class and many of the wealthy lived in the city limits, took cabs, trains and buses because the streets were designed for horsedrawn vehicles and a smaller population and parking and traffic made a car awkward. (I was the first female in my family to even learn to drive one--they just weren't necessary) Also, the land that became the vast wasteland of suburbia was then occupied by truck gardens, family beef and dairy farms and further out, corn and grain production. The city was to a large extent, supplied not by Chinese imports and Mexican and South American produce, but by it's own contiguous acres.(My Swedish immigrant grandfather was a milk deliveryman, and collected milk from outlying local dairies to be bottled in Chicago by local bottlers and home delivered by the traditional "milkman" in glass bottles...sigh...nice) Anyway, the further we've moved from this model, the more ecologically expensive and culturally divisive it seems to me to have become. It would be great if we could somehow reverse this trend.

Prime Junta

January 13th, 2008, 13:02

How could we be so stupid? we had the technology to build cars that consumes like 0.2 l / km ( sorry USA people do not know your measurements ) and instead of using these car we make an average of 1 l / km so we can have better acceleration, more powerful engine and more accidents. On top of that when we need to reduce global warming the most.... a indian car company presents a car for $2000 so that the 300 million people in india (middle class ) can get cars! This earth is truly doomed and most of us humans are too lazy or stupid to do anything about it!

It's not quite that bleak. There simply isn't enough oil for those 300 million Indians (or 500 million Chinese) to drive their cars like we're used to driving. (Or us either, for that matter.) That means that the problem has a built-in limiter: greenhouse gas emissions from traffic can't go up exponentially because oil production can't go up exponentially, and you can't burn more oil than you produce.

The upshot is that either we stop driving, or we find alternative energy sources.

In the long run (and this may come as a surprise to some of you) I'm an optimist.

We have the technology to produce all the clean energy we want. Just cover a few per cent of the Sahara in solar energy plants, run high-voltage lines to the Mediterranean, use the electricity to produce hydrogen from seawater, ship that hydrogen around the world, and run cars on that.

OK, seriously -- that's certainly not the answer, although it could be a part of the answer. But there's a huge amount of green energy research going on, from thermal solar engines to hydrocarbon production from garbage, to the just commercialized Toshiba micro nuclear reactor (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html)(comes in a convenient 6 x 20 foot package, is pre-fueled to produce 200 kW for 40 years with no maintenance, with the electricity costs about half what people in the developed world currently pay).

If just a few of these efforts turn out to be viable, we'll have all the energy we need in a perfectly sustainable way.

As to the rest of the ecology equation, that's not too bad either: we'd just have to reduce our ecological footprint to about one-half the European average per person. I'm quite sure this is doable without adversely affecting quality of life -- in fact, it's likely to *improve* the quality of life, since it certainly implies solving problems like urban congestion, which reduce the quality of life.

In other words, I'm pretty confident that we will sort this out, eventually.

However, I share your short-run pessimism. The trouble is that the more time we waste solving this problem, the more damage we will do -- and some of that damage (e.g. lost biodiversity) will not be repairable in the human timescale. Sure, biodiversity will return in a few million years, but we don't have that kind of time.

PS. Dunno about you, but when I heard about Toshiba's reactor, my gut reaction was...

http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2007/08/128291014922933750want.jpg (http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/08/15/want-3/)

curiously undead

January 13th, 2008, 16:58

just say no to nuclear
my mutant friend

GothicGothicness

January 13th, 2008, 22:41

Toshiba micro nuclear reactor

The biggest problem with nuclear power is not the risk of a meltdown, it is the risk of the terrorists using it to make bombs. That's the main reason given for it to not be a good solution.

curiously undead

January 13th, 2008, 22:59

i'm not concerned with risks i'm concerned with the inevitables such as can we bury the spent fuel rods in your back yard?

VPeric

January 14th, 2008, 00:00

Prime Junta

January 14th, 2008, 00:15

Typo/brain fart, I think. Move the decimal point one notch to the left, and the numbers make sense. Or replace liters with deciliters.

Prime Junta

January 14th, 2008, 00:19

i'm not concerned with risks i'm concerned with the inevitables such as can we bury the spent fuel rods in your back yard?

I doubt that would be a viable solution. There are, however, viable ways of disposing of nuclear waste, but it would be a pretty long discussion to get into. And no, I don't think that weaponizing Toshiba's reactor would be a practical proposition.

(For the record, yes, I do believe that nuclear power will be one necessary ingredient in the next generation "energy cocktail." As to the waste, my prediction is that we'll eventually end up burning it in accelerator-driven subcritical nuclear reactors.)

curiously undead

January 14th, 2008, 02:15

i'm scared to imagine what the byproduct of that would be...

Pladio

January 14th, 2008, 03:07

Couldn't all of the waste be thrown into space ? As space is infinitely large ?

Costly, I know, but would this be possible ?

curiously undead

January 14th, 2008, 05:01

wouldn't we be pissed if a massive radioactive comet hit our planet from some long extinct(or not) civilization from the ancient reaches of our galaxy.

or per futurama when 'old new york' jettisons there trash into space and 1000 years later its hurtled back at them. the chances are slim but objects in space are rarely stationary or straight and who knows all the gravitaional forces that could effect it on its journey.

problems are best not caused
rather than trying to find someone or something to push them off on.
we might as well make nuclear brownies out of the stuff at least then we can feign benignness even though its impossible for any action regarding hazardous waste to be such.

edit:back to green vehicles
heres a video clip of the cool electric motorcycle used throughout the 'coolfuel' trip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3xV51bRNZI&feature=related

Prime Junta

January 14th, 2008, 12:41

i'm scared to imagine what the byproduct of that would be...

Byproduct of what? Accelerator-driven subcritical reactors? They produce low-active nuclear waste, comparable to naturally-occurring uranium ores and such. Look it up, it's a remarkable technology.

Prime Junta

January 14th, 2008, 12:44

Couldn't all of the waste be thrown into space ? As space is infinitely large ?

Costly, I know, but would this be possible ?

Possible, certainly, but not practical. The energy needed to shoot them past escape velocity would be pretty big compared to the energy extracted from it in the first place. Then there are the practical issues -- I would not feel comfortable about a canister of high-active waste sitting on top of a tank of kerosene and oxygen.

We already know how to get rid of nuclear waste; we're just not doing it because it's cheaper to bury it in Yucca Mountain (or its equivalents around the world).

Prime Junta

January 14th, 2008, 12:52

wouldn't we be pissed if a massive radioactive comet hit our planet from some long extinct(or not) civilization from the ancient reaches of our galaxy.

Just shoot the stuff into the Sun, then. It's heavy; it'll slowly sink into the center. (Assuming shooting it into space was practical to start with, which it isn't.)

the chances are slim but objects in space are rarely stationary or straight and who knows all the gravitaional forces that could effect it on its journey.

@cu, the chances of something shot into interstellar space of hitting anything at all before the stuff decays into iron are a minimal fraction of tiny. Space is BIG. If you want to worry about something, worry about far more likely eventualities, such as the black hole in the center of the Milky Way exploding and eradicating all life in the galaxy by gamma radiation. Or, even better, an asteroid hitting the Earth: that's not just likely, it's a certainty; the only question is "when."

problems are best not caused
rather than trying to find someone or something to push them off on.
we might as well make nuclear brownies out of the stuff at least then we can feign benignness even though its impossible for any action regarding hazardous waste to be such.

The problem is that no way of generating power is *completely* benign. There are always costs and trade-offs. Nuclear power has its problems, but compared to coal, for example, they're very manageable. I agree that we should eventually aim for completely renewable sources -- solar, in one form or another -- but it'll take us a quite a long time to get there; probably centuries rather than decades. We'll have to produce power somehow in the meantime, and crossing out nuclear means that it'll almost certainly be coal. (There's a huge "clean coal" PR campaign going on even now.)

Eliaures

January 15th, 2008, 04:48

Actually, Mercedes Benz is the greenest car available, winning the World Green Car award (http://autos.canada.com/green/story.html?id=1d98519a-31a4-4838-8197-5f2ea9842a92).

Also the nickel mined for the batteries for electric and hybrid cars impacts both human and environmental concerns (http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/where_we_work/camexca/news_publications/art7269.html). Your best bet for a green car would most likely be to buy a used diesel with high mileage. No new materials will be needed for the new car and you'll be saving on fuel with the diesel.

Prime Junta

January 15th, 2008, 11:50

Your best bet for a green car would most likely be to buy a used diesel with high mileage. No new materials will be needed for the new car and you'll be saving on fuel with the diesel.

There's a bit of a flaw in that reasoning: it would be true if and only if you traded down -- that is, you sold a car that was likely to be kept in circulation, and bought a car that was likely to be taken out of circulation. Normally you'll do the exact opposite.

That means that the car you sold will get bought by someone who will in turn trade up until the chain terminates with someone who either doesn't own a car, or scraps his old car. Conversely, the guy who sold you the used diesel will have bought something a bit nicer: either a new car, or a used car from someone who traded up, and so on.

The upshot is that whenever you trade up your car, a new car will get manufactured and enter circulation. However, you can only decide whether it's a Hummer or an A160D if you buy it yourself!

Finally, there's the question of ecological cost of manufacture versus ecological cost of use. New cars cost a lot to manufacture, but old cars cost more to use.

So, for the outcome to be ecologically positive, all of the older, less ecological-to-use cars would have to end up with people who use them less, while the new, more-ecological-to-use cars would have to end up with people who use them more.

Where does that leave the ecologically minded individual who wants to trade rides? Confused, I'll bet. I think the only advice that's generally likely to be valid is this:

* If you drive a lot, buy a new, low-consumption, "green" car, and sell your old one to someone who drives less.
* If you drive a little, keep your old rustbucket in circulation as long as it hangs together (or trade down).

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 08:16

Imo, these green car technologies are still in their infancy / experimental-development phase. Gas guzzlers had several decades to refine and evolve ... into what... a 10 mpg Hummer ?

Solar panels have gone from 15% solar cell efficiency decades ago to 60% now, and they will only become more viable.

Imagine in the near future, when cars will be plugged into a garage outlet and recharged almost exclusively by solar panels and wind turbines. Not only will this be clean, renewable, alternative energy, it will also be extremely profitable for companies involved in refining and producing these innovative technologies. It will also reduce dependence on highly polluting, unrenewable, foreign oil sources. I see it as a win-win scenario in the long term, but in the short term there will be some imperfections, mistakes and inadequacies.

Eliaures

January 16th, 2008, 19:28

There's a bit of a flaw in that reasoning: it would be true if and only if you traded down --

I never profess to be without flaws. :)

I was really encouraged after listening to NPR's Science Friday (http://www.sciencefriday.com/) about the prospect of wind energy. There has been a big push to promote this technology and even my states right wing Governor Good Hair is behind the expansion of wind turbines in Texas. I will be more for electric vehicles when the power comes from clean sources as opposed to coal and petroleum fired plants. Now this is corporate welfare I could get behind, big subsidies for clean energy development and installation.

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 20:30

You could do that in a reasonably non-risky way too, without having to resort to corporate welfare: have the government fund the basic research, which goes into the public domain for any businessman to pick up, and finance it with a carbon tax of $30 per ton, applied equally to all electricity utilities. (Then spend whatever's left on carbon sequestration, like planting trees.)

There's a lot of sunny desert in the US. Cover that with solar and wind, and you have a great deal of clean energy.

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 20:32

Solar panels have gone from 15% solar cell efficiency decades ago to 60% now, and they will only become more viable.

More to the point, they've gone down to $1 per watt. If you have lots of real estate (as in, desert), the efficiency doesn't really matter, it's the cost per watt that's the limiting factor. So one of those $3.7 million, 200 kW Toshiba micro-nukes would by 3.7 MW of solar panels -- not too shabby at all.

GothicGothicness

January 16th, 2008, 20:43

More to the point, they've gone down to $1 per watt. If you have lots of real estate (as in, desert), the efficiency doesn't really matter, it's the cost per watt that's the limiting factor. So one of those $3.7 million, 200 kW Toshiba micro-nukes would by 3.7 MW of solar panels -- not too shabby at all.

The largest problem with the solar panels currently are that they cost a lot of energy to build, and uses some none environmental frienly film, and rare materials. We have to find a more energy effective and environmental friendly method to produce them ( there are friendly methods but the resulting cell has much less throughput ) You need to use them for 5 years or something in order for the effort and other drawbacks to pay off!

Huh? Either there's a typo out there, or I'm confused: 0.2 litres of what?

Sorry I had writen mile, after that I realised that one swedish mile is totally different from what you people meant with mile! so I changed to km, but forgot to change the liters, like PJ said it should be dl, or l per 10km ( which is one swedish mile )

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 21:07

The largest problem with the solar panels currently are that they cost a lot of energy to build, and uses some none environmental frienly film, and rare materials. We have to find a more energy effective and environmental friendly method to produce them ( there are friendly methods but the resulting cell has much less throughput ) You need to use them for 5 years or something in order for the effort and other drawbacks to pay off!

Already done -- those would be the $1/W panels I mentioned. Read all about it on their website. [ http://www.nanosolar.com/index.html ].

sherwinz28

January 16th, 2008, 21:23

I hate to post in this thread as I drive a 5.7 liter sports car (Heavily modified Z-28). It's not driven much maybe 3000 miles/year, just a short drive to the rapid transit station which then takes me into the city. I'd love to have a more fuel efficient car as my car only gets ~10-12 miles/gallon city as long as I don't get trigger happy. I'm waiting for BMW to release their 1 series deisel here. In the US you don't have a lot of nice choices when it comes to deisel. I would think about a bike but crime is pretty high and my bike would most likely get stolen at the station.

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 22:45

At 3000 miles per year it doesn't really matter much in the big picture what you drive; by taking that rapid transit you're already doing more for the climate than most. IOW, if driving that hog gives you pleasure, don't lose any sleep over it -- you're still producing less CO2 than the graying hippie in a 50 mpg car who clocks 20,000 miles a year. Especially if you factor in the carbon cost of trading to the Beamer -- which would very likely put your Z28 in someone's hands who drives it much more.

Simply put, if only people like you had V8's, we wouldn't have much of a problem.

GothicGothicness

January 17th, 2008, 19:50

I drive a 5.7 liter sports car
I would think about a bike but crime is pretty high and my bike would most likely get stolen at the station.

hehe, there is a bigger chance of your bike being stolen compared to your sports car... strange country :P

http://www.nanosolar.com/index.html

Interesting I didn't know about it, it's after I took that course so I haven't been updated for a couple of months. It remains to be seen how well it'll work out, since it shipped that recently though!

GhanBuriGhan

January 17th, 2008, 20:08

I like the Honda Civic Hybrid. Won some first spots on "eco" lists here in europe, too.

StackSmasher

January 18th, 2008, 22:57

I am sorry to say that there is not really such a thing as a green car.
PJ is right when he says the lowest consuming diesel car is the best choice, or in some ways even the lowest consuming one that goes on gas. Except in Brazil!

Confused yet? In Brazil they have a lot of etanol cars, there are driven by etanol produce from sugar canes, which produces the least amount of CO2 pollution of the method we know of so far. In use Etanol is produced by corn, which is a energy hungry process, that acctually realese more CO2 compared to driving with gas!

If you have an electric car, a lot of this electricity is still produced by coal or oil burning in a powerplant, which also causes a lot of CO2 being sent out into the environment, however if the electric cars could become much more effective this alternative could also be an alternative! Or even better if we could produce the largest part of our electrictiy from solar power! Which the researcher thinks will be the solution to our problems in the future!

To sum up, to be truly environmental friendly DON't use a car! take the bike, it also make you much more healthy! If you are too old or weak to use it, try public transportation it is still much better than a car!
By the gods it's good to hear the voice of reason from others. As you said in another post in this thread, it's imperative that we refine photovoltaics. Not just the manufacture of photo processing gear but also our ability to store and release the charge efficiently. It is our single best bet for 'renewable energy' that, to our knowledge, has the least impact on our environment sans a breakthrough in physics that enables us to harness gravity ala a portable singularity.

When I go back to school, this is exactly what I'll be studying. I can't wait.

Prime Junta

January 18th, 2008, 23:07

Not just the manufacture of photo processing gear but also our ability to store and release the charge efficiently.

You put your finger on it.

Here's a business idea that's guaranteed to make you rich -- free for anyone reading to grab it, 'cuz I'm too lazy.

Find a supplier for batteries, and sell them, bundled with those $1/W solar panels, in Lebanon.

Why? Because the electricity grid in Lebanon sucks, and people are currently using diesel generators to fill in the gap. They're noisy, stinky, high-maintenance, and the fuel costs money. As does that unreliable electricity, unless you're a Shi'ite in which case you get it for free. OTOH there's plenty of sunshine, and a lot of people with free roofs to put the panels and enough money to pay for them.

IOW, solar panels combined with batteries that'll slash your electricity bills, keep your lights on when the mains power goes out, and do it silently and with no fuel costs should be a very easy sell. The good conscience that comes from slashing carbon emissions comes at no extra cost.

StackSmasher

January 19th, 2008, 00:56

Good example.

Don't forget, though, our battery tech sucks. We need to improve our storage technology by orders of magnitude. There is no argument here.

Money? WTF? I'm ranting, but not at you Prime Junta. Money and science should have only one relationship: money funds our research and development. I wish great minds could collaborate without political interferences or financial undercurrents.

Edit: Bah, please excuse me, I get pretty opinionated when science and environmentalism are concerned. As a German/American Indian mutt, I tend to have a skewed viewpoint on such matters.

GothicGothicness

January 19th, 2008, 11:10

When I go back to school, this is exactly what I'll be studying. I can't wait.

What's your subject??

also our ability to store and release the charge efficiently
Yes, it is another big problem about solar power, that I didn't mention yet, and a huge problem with the electric car too. Especially in countries like Sweden, if we were to go by solar power, we'll have a big problem during winter, since there is hardly any sun, on the other hand we could store up during summer when we have 24 hours of sun. If the nanosolars that PJ posted will work out really well in practice I hope a lot of reseash will be put into storing this energy in a very good way.

Nasa has also built an airplane that flies by solar power.... it sounds really dangerous!! ooops weatherforecast is wrong... no sun for this day... Houston we are going down :P but would be ineteresting to build one with nanosolar technology anyway, if we had truly great battery solutions, we could use this airplanes on lines like from Africa or middle easy where there are ussually a lot of sun, and they could charge up there.. fly to the dark destination, and back again to charge.

Prime Junta

January 19th, 2008, 12:07

Nasa has also built an airplane that flies by solar power.... it sounds really dangerous!! ooops weatherforecast is wrong... no sun for this day... Houston we are going down :P but would be ineteresting to build one with nanosolar technology anyway, if we had truly great battery solutions, we could use this airplanes on lines like from Africa or middle easy where there are ussually a lot of sun, and they could charge up there.. fly to the dark destination, and back again to charge.

Sunshine wouldn't be a problem, since they'd be flying above the clouds.

However, I doubt we'll be seeing solar-powered airliners any time soon. The limiting factor is the power to weight/surface area ratio (in which the Nanosolar panels are no better than average), and you also need a lot more power to get the plane off the ground. To get these kinds of energy densities, I think we'll be needing chemical fuels into the foreseeable future.

The point with solar-powered planes is endurance -- once you get one up there, it'll stay up there until it breaks. That means they're good for, for example, survey purposes.

What would an eco-plane be like, then?

For long hauls, we'll still need jet engines -- prop-driven aircraft are just too slow. That means burning something. That something could be biofuel or hydrogen. Current jet engines wouldn't need huge modifications for either purpose; the safety of hydrogen fuel could be a problem though. So all you have to do is produce the fuel in a sustainable manner, and you're golden.

For short trips, an electric system could work. We could have a fuel cell burning hydrogen or a hydrogen derivative, powering electric motors that turn the props. Or if there's a really huge leap in battery technology, replace the fuel cell with the battery.

GothicGothicness

January 20th, 2008, 11:19

Sunshine wouldn't be a problem, since they'd be flying above the clouds.

It'd still be, if the airplane is supposed to charge while it is on the ground to get enough energy stored for its next trip. At least from a security perspective it would be ok, as long as you plan for the part of the trip that do go below the clouds, which on a shorter trip ( which they'd probably be used for ) is quite large, I'd say 10-20 minutes on both landing and going up.

Also there can be storms or other things, to prevent it from landing, and when the night comes by, there will be no more solar power. So you'll have to have a lot of margins.

At the very least I hope they can make some hybrids though, that also has normal fuel, in case there is different kind of problems! They could consume less than a completely fuel drive airplane.

Prime Junta

January 20th, 2008, 11:54

It'd still be, if the airplane is supposed to charge while it is on the ground to get enough energy stored for its next trip.

Why not just plug it in a wall outlet, like electric cars?

Also there can be storms or other things, to prevent it from landing, and when the night comes by, there will be no more solar power. So you'll have to have a lot of margins.

Is there any reason storms would affect them more than regular aircraft? And again, why not charge them up from the electricity grid?

At the very least I hope they can make some hybrids though, that also has normal fuel, in case there is different kind of problems! They could consume less than a completely fuel drive airplane.

And, again, this wouldn't work well for planes, since a hybrid system means you're transporting multiple power sources and engines, which means more weight. With aircraft, the challenge is power to weight ratio.

So I really don't think there are commercial solar-powered planes in our future; there are better ways to get a zero-emissions plane.

StackSmasher

January 20th, 2008, 15:30

What's your subject??
I have two years finished toward my EE. I'm going to finish that up via night school and research where to do my graduate work in the meantime.

GothicGothicness

January 20th, 2008, 17:06

Why not just plug it in a wall outlet, like electric cars?

And have solar power on the airterminal too? and if there is not enough power we can use regular power sources. Sure, just thought it'd be neat to be able to land them much more freely, have them charge up by themselves and fly on... just the way we'd like with an electric car!

Is there any reason storms would affect them more than regular aircraft?
I mean it has to come down, and if it can't land it needs to circle, if it is bad weather and it is under the clouds it'll be without power. The kind of solar power aircraft I imagine is kind of too advanced for right now though!

And, again, this wouldn't work well for planes, since a hybrid system means you're transporting multiple power sources and engines
Yes, but if we can have effective solar power and battery, I thought it can be possible to keep it hovering above the clouds by the solar power, and use other fuel for take off and landing ( and emergency ) it'll require some better engine technology, but it could also save weight on the fuel it needs to hold. Again needs better solar cells....

Prime Junta

January 20th, 2008, 17:32

And have solar power on the airterminal too? and if there is not enough power we can use regular power sources. Sure, just thought it'd be neat to be able to land them much more freely, have them charge up by themselves and fly on... just the way we'd like with an electric car!

More or less. We already know how to produce electricity for the grid sustainably; the only problem is money and installed base. It's certainly easier than producing a solar-powered airliner, which is (I believe) beyond the reach of current technology. OTOH a hydrogen-powered airliner is perfectly feasible, and if we can produce electricity sustainably, we can produce hydrogen sustainably.