Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 30
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sugarloaf, PA
    Posts
    60
    The Volt may get 230 MPG, but the design is such that the bulk of your use will be done by charging the batteries with AC current from your home. Since the electricity in the NE is mostly generated by coal fired power plants, what exactly is the "green" savings?? And, oh by the way, does anyone get their electricity for free?? There goes the regular cost savings. And if anyone out there owns a scissors lift, they can tell you deep cycle batteries aren't cheap, and don't last forever. The Volt may be a "first step", but that's all it is. The real future is in hybrid electric/ ??, NG, biofuel, etc. Just my 2 cents.

  2. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Maple Grove, MN
    Posts
    1,139
    The question that has been brought up about their performance in the cold is something I have been wondering about also. A few years ago everyone was raving about hydrogen cars. People would say that with hydrogen cars the only thing that would come out of the exhaust pipe would be water. I don't think you would want a bunch of cars spewing water all over the road when it is below freezing outside.

    That being said, I do think the Volt could be a big step in the right direction. More electric cars = less dependence on foreign oil.

  3. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    5,355
    Quote Originally Posted by ammoniadog View Post
    The question that has been brought up about their performance in the cold is something I have been wondering about also. A few years ago everyone was raving about hydrogen cars. People would say that with hydrogen cars the only thing that would come out of the exhaust pipe would be water. I don't think you would want a bunch of cars spewing water all over the road when it is below freezing outside.

    That being said, I do think the Volt could be a big step in the right direction. More electric cars = less dependence on foreign oil.
    The only time a hydro powered engine would produce just water is if it burned pure oxygen. If it burned air you'd get nitrous oxides.
    http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
    Don Lancasters paper on hydrogen page 4. Shows how often a wrong direction is taken.
    Tracers work both ways.

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    5,355
    Does anyone wonder when it might occur to our energy industries that because of huge transmission losses transporting electricity it should be produced at point of use whenever possible.
    Probably no way to make money that way.
    Tracers work both ways.

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    1,701
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    The only time a hydro powered engine would produce just water is if it burned pure oxygen. If it burned air you'd get nitrous oxides.
    http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
    Don Lancasters paper on hydrogen page 4. Shows how often a wrong direction is taken.
    woo hoo! laughing gas!
    "When the people find they can vote themselves money,that will herald the end of the republic" - Benjamin Franklin

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action"- George Washington

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwest Arkansas via Chicago Area via Straight Up from There on Lake Superior
    Posts
    1,411
    Quote Originally Posted by mark beiser View Post
    ...

    I'm all for electric vehicles, I'm especially impressed with what Tesla motors has done with the roadster, and with the new 7 passenger car they will have for sale in 2011. The roadster has a range of up to 244 miles, less if you actually use its 3.9 second 0-60 capability much. The new 7 passenger car will have a range of up to 300 miles, depending on the battery size option selected.
    Their cars are high performance and/or luxury cars though. $100k+ for the roadster, $60k+ for the 7 passenger car.
    I wish they would come out with a regular people car...
    Why is it Tesla can get a range of 244 miles on a roadster and plan 300 miles on a 7 passenger car and the Volt only gets 40 miles on battery? Is that the difference a $60k or $100k car makes compared to one that costs $40k?

    Also, why do you need a 1.4 liter gas engine to recharge the Volt? Wouldn't my John Deere or some other 20-30 HP engine (even diesel) be adequate? And they could reduce the weight of the engine and put in more battery capacity, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by mark beiser View Post
    ...

    Because of Americas ridiculously unreasonable fear of nuclear power ...
    We need to do many things to become more energy independent, nuclear power and electric vehicles are very important parts of the equation.
    ...
    Yes to nuclear! What ever happened (besides the present administration) happened to all of those new nuc designs they are supposed to be working on? No wonder they take so long to install. They disappear for decades.

  7. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,914
    Quote Originally Posted by jerryd_2008 View Post
    Why is it Tesla can get a range of 244 miles on a roadster and plan 300 miles on a 7 passenger car and the Volt only gets 40 miles on battery? Is that the difference a $60k or $100k car makes compared to one that costs $40k?
    Yeah, the size of the battery packs drives the price up real quick. Tesla Motors uses lithium batteries. Interestingly, the new cars they are coming out with are supposedly going to have user changeable battery packs that take ~5 minutes to change.

    Also, why do you need a 1.4 liter gas engine to recharge the Volt? Wouldn't my John Deere or some other 20-30 HP engine (even diesel) be adequate? And they could reduce the weight of the engine and put in more battery capacity, right?
    It is probably some highly efficient and highly emissions controlled stationary engine.
    I have to wonder why not a turbo diesel instead of a gas burner though...

    Yes to nuclear! What ever happened (besides the present administration) happened to all of those new nuc designs they are supposed to be working on? No wonder they take so long to install. They disappear for decades.
    Franc and a couple of other countries have developed mature breeder reactor technology, and are reprocessing their own nuclear fuel, as well as fuel from the UK and other countries, back into new fuel.
    They are also able to process the byproducts from reprocessing the spent uranium fuel for standard reactors into nuclear fuel for newer style reactors, like pebble bed reactors, so there is little or no waste to deal with.

    Carter stuck our collective head in the sand on the issue of breeder reactors with the excuse that it was a anti nuclear weapons proliferation measure. Some of the by products of reprocessing nuclear fuel can be used to make nuclear weapons, so clearly we had to abandon exploration of the technology all together.
    Never mind that those same byproducts can be, and are being, processed into nuclear fuel...
    Not to dump all the blame on Carter, although he deserves LOTS of blame, but none of the presidents that came after him reversed the executive order...

    I find it ironic that the same leftists in our country that idolize France's politics, almost universally completely ignore the fact that France is ranked #1 in the world, by far, for the percentage of their electrical power is from nuclear, 76.2%.
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwest Arkansas via Chicago Area via Straight Up from There on Lake Superior
    Posts
    1,411
    Quote Originally Posted by mark beiser View Post
    ...
    Franc and a couple of other countries have developed mature breeder reactor technology, and are reprocessing their own nuclear fuel, as well as fuel from the UK and other countries, back into new fuel.
    They are also able to process the byproducts from reprocessing the spent uranium fuel for standard reactors into nuclear fuel for newer style reactors, like pebble bed reactors, so there is little or no waste to deal with.

    ...
    Unfortunately, the US rules are that fuel can be used once through only. Completely ignores the fact that there is much valuable fuel left if reprocessed AND recycling results is an enormous reduction in the waste size - like tons to beer can size. Much easier to secure and handle a beer can than tons of hot material. Like many things Americans have their heads in the sand and don't understand anything but emotion on important issues!

    Quote Originally Posted by mark beiser View Post
    Never mind that those same byproducts can be, and are being, processed into nuclear fuel...
    Not to dump all the blame on Carter, although he deserves LOTS of blame, but none of the presidents that came after him reversed the executive order...
    Yea, Argonne National Lab had a breeder that used sodium to cool and metallic fuel rods that resulted in a reactor that went into safe equilibrium when cooling was completely shut off unlike water cooled that will blow the top off the reactor. ANL was also developing a local reprocessing capability that recycled the fuel back into the reactor. All got canceled.

    Quote Originally Posted by mark beiser View Post
    I find it ironic that the same leftists in our country that idolize France's politics, almost universally completely ignore the fact that France is ranked #1 in the world, by far, for the percentage of their electrical power is from nuclear, 76.2%.
    Japan isn't far behind them.

  9. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    in a house, Appomattox, Va.
    Posts
    3,197
    If you really want to get the efficieny up on internal combustion engines, get rid of the radiator/cooling system.

    running a heat engine will a refrigeration system built into it isn't all that efficient. then, throw in some hybrid tech to top things off.

    How much gov money has gome into very high temperature steel, or other material for an engine that can run at over several thousand deg w/o melting and is strong enough?

    Its rather deceitful to only show gas mileage and hide the other fuel costs to run the volt.(plenty of money for that sort of tech)
    Col 3:23


    questions asked, answers received, ignorance abated

  10. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by billygoat22 View Post
    If you really want to get the efficieny up on internal combustion engines, get rid of the radiator/cooling system.
    Smokey Yunick was working on that technology when he passed away. I wonder if anything has happened with it since then.
    Low Pressure Forever!

    If you know heavy metal, you can work anywhere-Dave Andreson

    Anchors Aweigh my boys, Anchors Aweigh!
    Farewell to foreign shores, We sail at break of day. Through our last night on shore, Drink to the foam. Until we meet once more. Here's wishing you a happy voyage home!

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    185
    I have a 1969 Mustang with a 302 (V8) in it getting 32-37 mpg. Makes you wonder what our cars should be able to do.

    With that said, I do like the idea of electric cars, but they have a long way to go.

    BTW I have to try to find the article but they have been proven to be worse for the environment based off production, waste batteries, production of electricity etc.

  12. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northwest Arkansas via Chicago Area via Straight Up from There on Lake Superior
    Posts
    1,411
    Quote Originally Posted by 69Stang View Post
    I have a 1969 Mustang with a 302 (V8) in it getting 32-37 mpg. Makes you wonder what our cars should be able to do.
    Would like to know how you did that. My 1966 Buick Special with 340 and 3-speed stick, no AC got like 14 on high test!

    Quote Originally Posted by 69Stang View Post
    ...

    BTW I have to try to find the article but they have been proven to be worse for the environment based off production, waste batteries, production of electricity etc.
    This is the point that all energy junkies either don't understand or deceptively avoid on many technologies. I'm all for alternatives but PLEASE tell us the full truth!

    How about (all quotes from reasonable books on energy): It takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get back AND it takes 170 gallons of water/gallon of corn ethanol, 900 gallons of water/gallon of biodiesel from soybeans. Or We discard 179,000 tons of batteries annually that contain toxic heavy metals. Or maybe a nuclear power plant's carbon dioxide emissions throughout its life-cycle and while producing electricity are about the same as those of wind power.

  13. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    in a house, Appomattox, Va.
    Posts
    3,197
    I'd like to know how much coal you have to burn to get the first 40 miles travel on a volt, or any elec car, better yet in equivalent gallons of gas/mile. apples to apples
    Col 3:23


    questions asked, answers received, ignorance abated

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event