More or less, the only sustainable long term method of locomotion would be electric cars or locomotion. Whether by using gasoline to generate electricity, or using giant solar panels in Alaska, or using Thorium to produce enormous amounts of electricity, electric cars present the only way to have clean and nearly fuel less energy generation for thousands, if not billions of years.
Logistically, electricity is simple to handle, as nearly anything that produces power or heat can produce electricity, and can be transported nearly instantaneously through wires anywhere desired. Due to the wide variety of applications of electricity, including heating, powering complicated hardware such as computers, filtration devices and refrigeration, electricity is incredibly important and pretty much the way of the future. Without it all of modern society would likely collapse and it's capabilities are nearly endless. A versatile and widespread way to transport energy, electric everything is more or less a desirable inevitability.
Current problems that exist include batteries, power generation sources, and potential safety issues or health hazards. Batteries may explode and burn if made of improper materials, can be toxic if disposed of improperly, have a tendency to wear out quickly (the International Space Station requires battery replacements every 6 years) and can be expensive to replace or buy in the first place. Power generation sources may be expensive, have dwindling fuel supplies (such as with gasoline), produce pollution or generally be dangerous (such as with *some* uranium designs). Other potential safety issues include improper disposal of batteries, potential fires if the batteries are not fire proof, and generally reduced weight in order to give further range or battery life to current electric automobiles.
If carbon fiber was just 1/3 it's initial cost, being 15 dollars per pound and needing to be 5 dollars per pound in order to be roughly the cost of steel per unit (as carbon fiber has 1/5th the density of steel), which may be plausible to reduce due to it's high manufacture cost and low material cost (being produced from rayon and nylon) and the potential decrease in cost of electricity using various methods, the range of electric cars could be tripled with potentially the life of the battery (used 1/3 the amount). This may also lengthen the life of the engine and make accidents safer as the car is lighter weight with no reduction in strength (and carbon fiber disintegrates on impact, producing a very reliable energy absorbing ability).
Depending on the batteries used, of which include potassium ion, lithium titanate, and Lithium Iron Phosphate, batteries may be cheaper, safer, or faster to recharge, eliminating more issues without decreasing total power capabilities.
With newer nano materials, possibly 10-20 years away, carbon super capacitors with far greater potential of any battery known to date (able to resist nearly any weather conditions, 100 times stronger than steel, able to store hundreds of times the energy as current batteries, wearing out in thousands of years etc.) and materials that are significantly stronger than any known material to date may be capable of mass production at relatively low prices, which will not only allow for amazing electric cars and batteries but also potentially lots of other products.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Batteries
Lithium Titanate
Lithium Titanate offers a solution to some of these problems. A lithium–titanate battery is a modified lithium-ion battery that uses lithium-titanate nanocrystals on the surface of its anode instead of carbon; this gives the anode a surface area of about 100 square meters per gram, compared with 3 square meters per gram for typical carbon, allowing electrons to enter and leave the anode quickly. This makes fast recharging possible and provides high currents when needed. The disadvantage is that lithium-titanate batteries have a lower voltage and storage capacity than conventional lithium-ion battery technologies, with generally only 70-80 watt-hours per kilogram of energy, compared to 100-250 in lithium. However, improved Lithium titanate batteries tend to offer batteries that can meet the levels of low level lithium ion batteries (around 110 watt-hours per kilogram) making them potentially a much more feasible option in terms of weight and size compare to lithium ion. Some batteries claim to capable of reaching 90% of their maximum charge in roughly 10 minutes, making them potentially capable of recharged relatively quickly when compared to lithium ion. As well, Lithium titanate proves to be one of the most expensive types of batteries, although is said to have one of the longest life cycles, at around 18,000 cycles, potentially making its cost in terms of replacement and service reasonable compared lithium ion and other forms of batteries.
Lithium–sulfur battery
In comparison, the lithium–sulfur battery (Li–S battery) is a rechargeable galvanic cell with a very high energy density in comparison to most batteries and specifically lithium ion. Due to the low atomic weight of lithium and moderate weight of sulfur, Li–S batteries are considered to be relatively light; about the density of water, giving them a relatively high energy density. Lithium–sulfur battery were used on the longest and highest-altitude solar-powered airplane flight on record, August, 2008, with the Swiss “Solar Impulse” vehicle. Lithium–sulfur batteries currently possess around 400 watt/hours per kilogram, which is roughly double the ability of medium to high grade lithium ion batteries and four times that of lower grade lithium ion batteries. Theoretically, a Lithium–sulfur battery could get up to 500-600 watt/hours per kilogram, possessing around 2.5-3 times the energy of a typical lithium ion battery, and therefore theoretically the range of an electric car. This could vastly increase the range of current electric vehicles, reducing much of the fear associated with “range anxiety” (the fear that one will run out of energy before they can reach their destination). As well, the generally tend to be cheaper than lithium ion, as sulfur is considered to be much cheaper than lithium. One of the primary drawbacks of most Lithium–sulfur batteries, however, is the intermediary reactions with the electrolytes. While Sulfur and Lithium Sulfur are relatively insoluble in most electrolytes, many of the intermediary polysulfides are not. The dissolving of the polysulfides into electrolytes can cause irreversible loss of active sulfur material. Much of the current research directed towards these batteries is designed to reduce this degradation and hopefully increase the cycle life and use of Lithium sulfur batteries.
Potassium Ion
Potassium ion batteries tend to hold a cheaper alternative than lithium ion. The battery essentially uses “Prussian blue”, a dark blue pigment with the formula Fe7(CN)1 , as the cathode material for its stability, and the prototype proved to successfully be used for millions of cycles. The potassium battery designed had many valuable advantages in comparison with similar lithium ion batteries: the cell design is simple, and both the material used and the procedure needed for the cell fabrication are cheaper. The chemical diffusion coefficient of Potassium in the cell is higher than that of Lithium, which is due to a smaller Stokes radius of Potassium in electrolyte solution (solvated ions). Since the electrochemical potential of Potassium is virtually identical to that of Lithium, the cell and battery potential is similar to that of lithium-ion. Potassium batteries can accept a wide range of cathode materials with excellent rechargeability, cheaper materials, and the like; noticeable advantage of potassium battery is the availability of potassium graphite, which is often used as an anode material in current lithium-ion battery. Its stable structure guarantees a reversible intercalation/de-intercalation of potassium ions during the charging/discharging process, suggesting the potential for a very long battery life. Potassium ion batteries, while somewhat undeveloped, present the advantage of cheaper manufacture and potentially increased durability when compared to lithium ion, and would only take minimal resources to mass produce and develop, possibly reconfiguring parts of old lithium ion production plants.
Lithium Iron Phosphate
The lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery, also called an LFP battery, is a type of rechargeable battery, specifically a lithium-ion battery, which uses LiFePO4 as a cathode material. The Battery offers a safer and somewhat greater long term storage capacity compared to lithium, being extremely difficult to catch on fire or explode, and is roughly equal to lithium ion in terms of storage capacity. Due to the significantly stronger bonds between the oxygen atoms in the phosphate (compared to the cobalt), oxygen is not readily released, and as a result, lithium iron phosphate cells are virtually incombustible in the event of mishandling during charge or discharge, and can handle high temperatures without decomposing when compared to various other lithium type batteries. This makes them much safer and less likely to explode or burn under high pressure or temperature circumstances. The battery does have some minor drawbacks however. While comparable to lithium ion, it possess roughly 14% less energy density; still as this is a relatively minor setback, it is expected that through the maximization of the weight to energy levels that the battery could be virtually equal to lithium ion in terms of energy density. As well, the battery has a relatively low discharge rate, meaning less power can be extracted within a certain amount of time; this can be compensated for, however, as a bigger battery can be used to increase the discharge. This comes with the advantage of having a lower long term discharge rate, meaning that the life of the battery and the discharge rate of the stored energy can be much lower, meaning that in long term applications it can serve as a more electrically efficient battery than lithium ion. It also a higher cycle life rate, at roughly 2000 cycles, compared to lithium at around 400-1200 depending on the battery used.
Lithium air batteries
Lithium air batteries offer a unique alternative to power consumption and range when compared to ordinary batteries. Essentially, lithium air batteries try to draw power from the air and surrounding environment, to supplement their power and provide a more efficient method of transportation. They could theoretically produce more output energy than input energy as well, which could increase the efficiency drastically and generate much longer ranges on a single charge. However, there are many challenges facing the design of Lithium air batteries, which currently limits their use to the laboratory. One of the largest challenges in producing a practical lithium air battery is in keeping the battery protected from the environment; Atmospheric oxygen must be present at the cathode in order to generate the perceived power, but the cathode can be degraded by humidity. Water vapor can cause rapid degradation of the power cell, reducing its efficiency and practical nature in the environment. If they were somehow shielded from water vapor and potentially other contaminants, current lithium air batteries could work relatively effectively with a large range on a single charge. There are currently four main types of lithium air batteries, being Aprotic, Aqueous, Mixed Aprotic/Aqueous, and solid state forms. Each one presents their own sets of challenges and advantages, and it remains to be seen which one will be the best. Aprotic batteries tend to be easily recharged and powered, although due to their electrolyte function tend to be clogged relatively easily. The aqueous version tends to have a relatively higher discharge rate and doesn’t result in as much clogging as the Aprotic version, but lithium reacts violently with water and as such creates a large number of problems when in practice. The Mixed Aprotic/Aqueous tends to solve both of these problems, all the results remain to be seen. The solid state batteries are somewhat safer and virtually eliminates the problems of both the liquid and Aprotic batteries, but is much weaker due to the low conductivity of the ceramics used, and cannot reach the same power levels as the other batteries. Hopefully, a solution will be developed for lithium air batteries in the near future.
Aluminum Air batteries
Another notable and potential unique alternative to modern batteries are Aluminum air batteries. They have one of the highest energy densities of all batteries, although weren’t used frequently to previous problems associated with shelf life, start-up time, and byproduct removal, which limited them mostly to specialist or military applications. Aluminum air batteries are primary batteries, that is non-rechargeable batteries, that essentially react aluminum with the air in order to generate a large amount of electricity; once the aluminum anode is consumed by its reaction with the atmospheric oxygen through a cathode immersed in a water-based electrolyte to form hydrated aluminum oxide, the battery will no longer produce electricity. It may be possible to mechanically recharge the battery with new aluminum anodes made from recycling the hydrated aluminum oxide, potentially making the recharge or use significantly easier. Obviously, such recycling will be essential if aluminum–air batteries are to be widely adopted in electric cars or other functions. Original aluminum-air batteries had a limited shelf life because the aluminum reacted with the electrolyte within its container and produced hydrogen when the battery was not in use, thus wasting it’s electrolyte source – although this is no longer the case with modern designs; by storing the electrolyte in a tank outside the battery and transferring it to the battery when it is required for use, the degradation over time does not occur. While non-rechargeable batteries do not seem like a likely candidate for long term energy replacement in electric cars, their raw power potentially makes them viable. Aluminum air batteries currently possess around 10-15 times the energy density as lead-acid batteries. A typical lead acid battery car has around a 50 mile range, giving the vehicle, potentially, a 500-750 mile range based on current estimates. However, the potential for aluminum air batteries is around 6000-8000 watthours per kilogram, potentially making it 4.6 to 6.15 times more powerful than they are now, giving it a potential range of 2300-4600 miles with a single battery. Still, due to the frequent replacements that would be needed of the battery, it is largely better reserved for specialist applications or in use for the military, whom require extended range or use of batteries without frequent recharging, and possess sufficient recycling programs.
Super Capacitors
The most reasonable form of power storage device comes from the potential creation of super capacitors made from nano-technology which could serve as pseudo-batteries and would be capable of providing long term power storage, quick recharge rates, an incredibly long cycle life, be relatively cheap to produce per cycle, and be capable of a massively higher energy density than lithium ion and potentially all known batteries. Due to the inherent strength of its components, it could also have a relatively high strength, potentially several times stronger than steel and have relatively high temperatures tolerances. Capacitors generally have a much lower power threshold when compared to batteries, and also a relatively higher discharge rate. Most commercially available supercapacitors are around 30-50 times weaker than lithium ion in terms of energy density, and many capacitors can be thousands of times weaker. Additionally, capacitors tend to have a much higher discharge rate than batteries, and have difficulty storing a charge for an extended period of time. While lithium ion has a discharge rate of roughly 8% it’s maximum energy storage per month, capacitors can generally be drained of nearly all their energy by that time (although capacitors can store low levels of energy for relatively long periods of time, meaning that a capacitor may never truly be completely discharged). By increasing the sheer power of the nano-capacitors, many of these problems could theoretically be solved. Nano capacitors could theoretically be thousands of times better than current super capacitors, meaning that stored at relatively low charges (1% of their maximum) nano capacitors could present roughly equal if not greater long term energy capacity when compared to lithium ion. Potentially, nano capacitors could store tens of times more energy than lithium ion, and potentially be lighter weight and cheaper as well. Due to the increased capacities of nano-capacitors, they may be able to store up to 5-10% of their maximum charge as efficiently as lithium ion, and with a similar if not lower discharge rate, meaning that they could not only present much better capabilities for capacitors, but also potentially store even greater levels of energy than if equivalent to the energy retention of typical capacitors, potentially allowing them to store hundreds of times more energy than lithium ion. As a capacitor, they could be charged as fast as fast allowed, allowing for relatively quick recharge times. You may buy a car fully charged off the lot, which could potentially be 10’s of thousands of miles worth of energy, given its raw power, potentially giving a new definition to the term “mileage”. They would also degrade in millions of cycles, instead of thousands, and could potentially last thousands of years, and given their large levels of capacitance (and therefore infrequent recharge rate) potentially more.
Luckily, Bucky Paper and Graphene sheets, integral components to nano-capacitors, have already been made in relatively large amounts; several inches, instead of the usual nano-meters. The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2010 was awarded to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov "for groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene"; and buckypaper was produced in sufficient quantities as well. Graphene was shown to have one of the highest breaking strengths and to be one of the strongest materials ever tested. Measurements have shown that graphene has a breaking strength 200 times greater than steel, with a tensile strength of around 130 GPa, or 19,000,000, or 19 million PSI. Bucky paper, on the other hand, promises to be roughly 250 times stronger than steel and harder than diamond; both possess the capability to be flexible, and grapheme has shown promise in being transparent and possible use as a display screen, for possible use with computers. Both can provide significant capacitance abilities, and could possibly be utilized together to create an extremely powerful ultra-capacitor. They also both present extremely powerful thermal capabilities, being able to absorb, disperse, or even potentially transport heat away from a source very quickly. Inches, if not bricks have been made, and it is likely only 10-20 years, at most, before both become a viable reality, especially in the world of electronics or in use as batteries. They both show promise in electronic miniaturization for many reason, which could absorb energy and transmit electricity very effectively, as well as be micro designed.
Hopefully, nano-capacitors will be developed in sufficient quantities in a short enough time to be made reasonable for most electronics and electric cars; at least at levels to match or only mildly exceed lithium ion, providing their other advantages, such as light weight, high strength, quick recharge time, potentially low resource cost, and long life, which could easily out do lithium ion and many other batteries.
In short, electric cars are the way to go in the future, as they provide the only potential long term, fuel efficient, low fuel, or fuel absent clean, sustainable long term energy methods for the future, and also would logistically simplify the production of energy into a single form, with easy distribution for all.
Lithium Titanate offers a solution to some of these problems. A lithium–titanate battery is a modified lithium-ion battery that uses lithium-titanate nanocrystals on the surface of its anode instead of carbon; this gives the anode a surface area of about 100 square meters per gram, compared with 3 square meters per gram for typical carbon, allowing electrons to enter and leave the anode quickly. This makes fast recharging possible and provides high currents when needed. The disadvantage is that lithium-titanate batteries have a lower voltage and storage capacity than conventional lithium-ion battery technologies, with generally only 70-80 watt-hours per kilogram of energy, compared to 100-250 in lithium. However, improved Lithium titanate batteries tend to offer batteries that can meet the levels of low level lithium ion batteries (around 110 watt-hours per kilogram) making them potentially a much more feasible option in terms of weight and size compare to lithium ion. Some batteries claim to capable of reaching 90% of their maximum charge in roughly 10 minutes, making them potentially capable of recharged relatively quickly when compared to lithium ion. As well, Lithium titanate proves to be one of the most expensive types of batteries, although is said to have one of the longest life cycles, at around 18,000 cycles, potentially making its cost in terms of replacement and service reasonable compared lithium ion and other forms of batteries.
Lithium–sulfur battery
In comparison, the lithium–sulfur battery (Li–S battery) is a rechargeable galvanic cell with a very high energy density in comparison to most batteries and specifically lithium ion. Due to the low atomic weight of lithium and moderate weight of sulfur, Li–S batteries are considered to be relatively light; about the density of water, giving them a relatively high energy density. Lithium–sulfur battery were used on the longest and highest-altitude solar-powered airplane flight on record, August, 2008, with the Swiss “Solar Impulse” vehicle. Lithium–sulfur batteries currently possess around 400 watt/hours per kilogram, which is roughly double the ability of medium to high grade lithium ion batteries and four times that of lower grade lithium ion batteries. Theoretically, a Lithium–sulfur battery could get up to 500-600 watt/hours per kilogram, possessing around 2.5-3 times the energy of a typical lithium ion battery, and therefore theoretically the range of an electric car. This could vastly increase the range of current electric vehicles, reducing much of the fear associated with “range anxiety” (the fear that one will run out of energy before they can reach their destination). As well, the generally tend to be cheaper than lithium ion, as sulfur is considered to be much cheaper than lithium. One of the primary drawbacks of most Lithium–sulfur batteries, however, is the intermediary reactions with the electrolytes. While Sulfur and Lithium Sulfur are relatively insoluble in most electrolytes, many of the intermediary polysulfides are not. The dissolving of the polysulfides into electrolytes can cause irreversible loss of active sulfur material. Much of the current research directed towards these batteries is designed to reduce this degradation and hopefully increase the cycle life and use of Lithium sulfur batteries.
Potassium Ion
Potassium ion batteries tend to hold a cheaper alternative than lithium ion. The battery essentially uses “Prussian blue”, a dark blue pigment with the formula Fe7(CN)1 , as the cathode material for its stability, and the prototype proved to successfully be used for millions of cycles. The potassium battery designed had many valuable advantages in comparison with similar lithium ion batteries: the cell design is simple, and both the material used and the procedure needed for the cell fabrication are cheaper. The chemical diffusion coefficient of Potassium in the cell is higher than that of Lithium, which is due to a smaller Stokes radius of Potassium in electrolyte solution (solvated ions). Since the electrochemical potential of Potassium is virtually identical to that of Lithium, the cell and battery potential is similar to that of lithium-ion. Potassium batteries can accept a wide range of cathode materials with excellent rechargeability, cheaper materials, and the like; noticeable advantage of potassium battery is the availability of potassium graphite, which is often used as an anode material in current lithium-ion battery. Its stable structure guarantees a reversible intercalation/de-intercalation of potassium ions during the charging/discharging process, suggesting the potential for a very long battery life. Potassium ion batteries, while somewhat undeveloped, present the advantage of cheaper manufacture and potentially increased durability when compared to lithium ion, and would only take minimal resources to mass produce and develop, possibly reconfiguring parts of old lithium ion production plants.
Lithium Iron Phosphate
The lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery, also called an LFP battery, is a type of rechargeable battery, specifically a lithium-ion battery, which uses LiFePO4 as a cathode material. The Battery offers a safer and somewhat greater long term storage capacity compared to lithium, being extremely difficult to catch on fire or explode, and is roughly equal to lithium ion in terms of storage capacity. Due to the significantly stronger bonds between the oxygen atoms in the phosphate (compared to the cobalt), oxygen is not readily released, and as a result, lithium iron phosphate cells are virtually incombustible in the event of mishandling during charge or discharge, and can handle high temperatures without decomposing when compared to various other lithium type batteries. This makes them much safer and less likely to explode or burn under high pressure or temperature circumstances. The battery does have some minor drawbacks however. While comparable to lithium ion, it possess roughly 14% less energy density; still as this is a relatively minor setback, it is expected that through the maximization of the weight to energy levels that the battery could be virtually equal to lithium ion in terms of energy density. As well, the battery has a relatively low discharge rate, meaning less power can be extracted within a certain amount of time; this can be compensated for, however, as a bigger battery can be used to increase the discharge. This comes with the advantage of having a lower long term discharge rate, meaning that the life of the battery and the discharge rate of the stored energy can be much lower, meaning that in long term applications it can serve as a more electrically efficient battery than lithium ion. It also a higher cycle life rate, at roughly 2000 cycles, compared to lithium at around 400-1200 depending on the battery used.
Lithium air batteries
Lithium air batteries offer a unique alternative to power consumption and range when compared to ordinary batteries. Essentially, lithium air batteries try to draw power from the air and surrounding environment, to supplement their power and provide a more efficient method of transportation. They could theoretically produce more output energy than input energy as well, which could increase the efficiency drastically and generate much longer ranges on a single charge. However, there are many challenges facing the design of Lithium air batteries, which currently limits their use to the laboratory. One of the largest challenges in producing a practical lithium air battery is in keeping the battery protected from the environment; Atmospheric oxygen must be present at the cathode in order to generate the perceived power, but the cathode can be degraded by humidity. Water vapor can cause rapid degradation of the power cell, reducing its efficiency and practical nature in the environment. If they were somehow shielded from water vapor and potentially other contaminants, current lithium air batteries could work relatively effectively with a large range on a single charge. There are currently four main types of lithium air batteries, being Aprotic, Aqueous, Mixed Aprotic/Aqueous, and solid state forms. Each one presents their own sets of challenges and advantages, and it remains to be seen which one will be the best. Aprotic batteries tend to be easily recharged and powered, although due to their electrolyte function tend to be clogged relatively easily. The aqueous version tends to have a relatively higher discharge rate and doesn’t result in as much clogging as the Aprotic version, but lithium reacts violently with water and as such creates a large number of problems when in practice. The Mixed Aprotic/Aqueous tends to solve both of these problems, all the results remain to be seen. The solid state batteries are somewhat safer and virtually eliminates the problems of both the liquid and Aprotic batteries, but is much weaker due to the low conductivity of the ceramics used, and cannot reach the same power levels as the other batteries. Hopefully, a solution will be developed for lithium air batteries in the near future.
Aluminum Air batteries
Another notable and potential unique alternative to modern batteries are Aluminum air batteries. They have one of the highest energy densities of all batteries, although weren’t used frequently to previous problems associated with shelf life, start-up time, and byproduct removal, which limited them mostly to specialist or military applications. Aluminum air batteries are primary batteries, that is non-rechargeable batteries, that essentially react aluminum with the air in order to generate a large amount of electricity; once the aluminum anode is consumed by its reaction with the atmospheric oxygen through a cathode immersed in a water-based electrolyte to form hydrated aluminum oxide, the battery will no longer produce electricity. It may be possible to mechanically recharge the battery with new aluminum anodes made from recycling the hydrated aluminum oxide, potentially making the recharge or use significantly easier. Obviously, such recycling will be essential if aluminum–air batteries are to be widely adopted in electric cars or other functions. Original aluminum-air batteries had a limited shelf life because the aluminum reacted with the electrolyte within its container and produced hydrogen when the battery was not in use, thus wasting it’s electrolyte source – although this is no longer the case with modern designs; by storing the electrolyte in a tank outside the battery and transferring it to the battery when it is required for use, the degradation over time does not occur. While non-rechargeable batteries do not seem like a likely candidate for long term energy replacement in electric cars, their raw power potentially makes them viable. Aluminum air batteries currently possess around 10-15 times the energy density as lead-acid batteries. A typical lead acid battery car has around a 50 mile range, giving the vehicle, potentially, a 500-750 mile range based on current estimates. However, the potential for aluminum air batteries is around 6000-8000 watthours per kilogram, potentially making it 4.6 to 6.15 times more powerful than they are now, giving it a potential range of 2300-4600 miles with a single battery. Still, due to the frequent replacements that would be needed of the battery, it is largely better reserved for specialist applications or in use for the military, whom require extended range or use of batteries without frequent recharging, and possess sufficient recycling programs.
Super Capacitors
The most reasonable form of power storage device comes from the potential creation of super capacitors made from nano-technology which could serve as pseudo-batteries and would be capable of providing long term power storage, quick recharge rates, an incredibly long cycle life, be relatively cheap to produce per cycle, and be capable of a massively higher energy density than lithium ion and potentially all known batteries. Due to the inherent strength of its components, it could also have a relatively high strength, potentially several times stronger than steel and have relatively high temperatures tolerances. Capacitors generally have a much lower power threshold when compared to batteries, and also a relatively higher discharge rate. Most commercially available supercapacitors are around 30-50 times weaker than lithium ion in terms of energy density, and many capacitors can be thousands of times weaker. Additionally, capacitors tend to have a much higher discharge rate than batteries, and have difficulty storing a charge for an extended period of time. While lithium ion has a discharge rate of roughly 8% it’s maximum energy storage per month, capacitors can generally be drained of nearly all their energy by that time (although capacitors can store low levels of energy for relatively long periods of time, meaning that a capacitor may never truly be completely discharged). By increasing the sheer power of the nano-capacitors, many of these problems could theoretically be solved. Nano capacitors could theoretically be thousands of times better than current super capacitors, meaning that stored at relatively low charges (1% of their maximum) nano capacitors could present roughly equal if not greater long term energy capacity when compared to lithium ion. Potentially, nano capacitors could store tens of times more energy than lithium ion, and potentially be lighter weight and cheaper as well. Due to the increased capacities of nano-capacitors, they may be able to store up to 5-10% of their maximum charge as efficiently as lithium ion, and with a similar if not lower discharge rate, meaning that they could not only present much better capabilities for capacitors, but also potentially store even greater levels of energy than if equivalent to the energy retention of typical capacitors, potentially allowing them to store hundreds of times more energy than lithium ion. As a capacitor, they could be charged as fast as fast allowed, allowing for relatively quick recharge times. You may buy a car fully charged off the lot, which could potentially be 10’s of thousands of miles worth of energy, given its raw power, potentially giving a new definition to the term “mileage”. They would also degrade in millions of cycles, instead of thousands, and could potentially last thousands of years, and given their large levels of capacitance (and therefore infrequent recharge rate) potentially more.
Luckily, Bucky Paper and Graphene sheets, integral components to nano-capacitors, have already been made in relatively large amounts; several inches, instead of the usual nano-meters. The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2010 was awarded to Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov "for groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene"; and buckypaper was produced in sufficient quantities as well. Graphene was shown to have one of the highest breaking strengths and to be one of the strongest materials ever tested. Measurements have shown that graphene has a breaking strength 200 times greater than steel, with a tensile strength of around 130 GPa, or 19,000,000, or 19 million PSI. Bucky paper, on the other hand, promises to be roughly 250 times stronger than steel and harder than diamond; both possess the capability to be flexible, and grapheme has shown promise in being transparent and possible use as a display screen, for possible use with computers. Both can provide significant capacitance abilities, and could possibly be utilized together to create an extremely powerful ultra-capacitor. They also both present extremely powerful thermal capabilities, being able to absorb, disperse, or even potentially transport heat away from a source very quickly. Inches, if not bricks have been made, and it is likely only 10-20 years, at most, before both become a viable reality, especially in the world of electronics or in use as batteries. They both show promise in electronic miniaturization for many reason, which could absorb energy and transmit electricity very effectively, as well as be micro designed.
Hopefully, nano-capacitors will be developed in sufficient quantities in a short enough time to be made reasonable for most electronics and electric cars; at least at levels to match or only mildly exceed lithium ion, providing their other advantages, such as light weight, high strength, quick recharge time, potentially low resource cost, and long life, which could easily out do lithium ion and many other batteries.
In short, electric cars are the way to go in the future, as they provide the only potential long term, fuel efficient, low fuel, or fuel absent clean, sustainable long term energy methods for the future, and also would logistically simplify the production of energy into a single form, with easy distribution for all.
Electric Vehicles
Electric
An electric car is an automobile which is propelled by an electric motor, using electrical energy stored in batteries or other energy storage devices. Electric cars were popular in the late-19th century and early 20th century, until advances in internal combustion engine technology and the mass production of cheaper gasoline vehicles led to a decline in the use of electric drive vehicle.
Electric cars possess several advantages. They produce close to no emissions directly from their use, and are capable of reducing urban pollution by potentially reducing the tailpipe emissions from current gasoline powered vehicles. The infrastructure is mostly established, given the power grid of the United States and most developed or developing nations, and so the transportation and acquiescence of power presents relatively little burden. Electricity can be generated in many forms, from coal, gasoline, natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear and various other sources of power, allowing multiple types of energy to be used to power locomotion. Theoretically, it would be possible to convert a simple exercise bike or hand crank into a power generator, although the production of power would vary based on the input energy and efficiency of the device. Electricity could be logistically simple power source as well, as air conditioning, lights, and various appliances are powered by electricity, and the power grid allows for near instant transportation of electricity anywhere wires are present. Electricity also provides the potential for completely reduced emissions and pollution, as renewable power sources such as solar panels or wind power or sources that produce no emissions such as thorium or uranium could completely reduce emissions. As well, thorium shows promise in producing enormous amounts of electricity cheaply with very little to no waste that can be easily cleaned up, and could prove to power the world and it’s form of locomotion relatively easily, cheaply, and cleanly for the next few thousand years. As of now, the power grid would theoretically be capable of handling the power requirements of a sudden shift to electric cars given the current electrical output, without turning anymore power stations online. As of now, the Department of energy says that roughly 180 million cars could switch over electric without turning any more power stations on, or roughly 84% of the total 220 million cars present in the United States (and it’s conceivable that not all of said vehicles are used on a daily basis).
Internal combustion engines, by comparison, are relatively inefficient at converting on-board fuel energy, such as gasoline, to forward propulsion as most of the energy is wasted as heat. Electric motors are more efficient in converting stored energy into driving vehicle, and electric drive vehicles do not consume energy while at rest or coasting, and some of the energy lost when braking can be captured and reused through regenerative braking, which can capture as much as one fifth of the energy normally lost during braking. Typically, conventional gasoline engines use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power their accessories, and comparative diesel engines can reach on-board efficiencies of roughly 20%, while electric drive vehicles can have on-board efficiency of around 80%. Most of the other 20% is due to the inefficiencies present in batteries, which can theoretically be reduced.
The current problems with electric cars are batteries and the power source (although it’s conceivable that a mild infrastructure change to large multiple car battery powering stations, or parking lots, would be beneficial). In the United States, currently, around 44.9% of energy is produced by coal, 23.4% is produced by natural gas, 20.3% is produced by nuclear power, 6.9% is produced by hydroelectric dams, 3.6% is produced by various renewable sources, and around 1% is produced by petroleum products. This means that a large portion of the energy is still produced by carbon producing materials, meaning that electricity currently still produces a large amount of polluting by products. If nuclear power, chiefly uranium for electricity production, was increased by just 5 times its current amount, then nearly all pollution from electrical emissions could be eliminated (except for, potentially, the costly to clean up nuclear waste). Luckily, thorium lends insight on how to replace electricity cheaply without the potential dangers of other forms of nuclear power for potentially hundreds of thousands of years. As well, it would be stable, abundant, and relatively powerful for isolated energy production, making it an ideal source of power for Cargo boats or Aircraft carriers. Additionally, if solar panels were used, it would be possible to generate practically fuel-less, stable, clean energy for millions of year, and due to recent advancements and potential geographic location in regards to large scale production (such as Antarctica) it may become a feasible alternative in the near future.
Despite the high potential for clean energy and electrical production, current batteries still possess major problems, including range on a single charge, recharge time, and battery life.
An electric car is an automobile which is propelled by an electric motor, using electrical energy stored in batteries or other energy storage devices. Electric cars were popular in the late-19th century and early 20th century, until advances in internal combustion engine technology and the mass production of cheaper gasoline vehicles led to a decline in the use of electric drive vehicle.
Electric cars possess several advantages. They produce close to no emissions directly from their use, and are capable of reducing urban pollution by potentially reducing the tailpipe emissions from current gasoline powered vehicles. The infrastructure is mostly established, given the power grid of the United States and most developed or developing nations, and so the transportation and acquiescence of power presents relatively little burden. Electricity can be generated in many forms, from coal, gasoline, natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear and various other sources of power, allowing multiple types of energy to be used to power locomotion. Theoretically, it would be possible to convert a simple exercise bike or hand crank into a power generator, although the production of power would vary based on the input energy and efficiency of the device. Electricity could be logistically simple power source as well, as air conditioning, lights, and various appliances are powered by electricity, and the power grid allows for near instant transportation of electricity anywhere wires are present. Electricity also provides the potential for completely reduced emissions and pollution, as renewable power sources such as solar panels or wind power or sources that produce no emissions such as thorium or uranium could completely reduce emissions. As well, thorium shows promise in producing enormous amounts of electricity cheaply with very little to no waste that can be easily cleaned up, and could prove to power the world and it’s form of locomotion relatively easily, cheaply, and cleanly for the next few thousand years. As of now, the power grid would theoretically be capable of handling the power requirements of a sudden shift to electric cars given the current electrical output, without turning anymore power stations online. As of now, the Department of energy says that roughly 180 million cars could switch over electric without turning any more power stations on, or roughly 84% of the total 220 million cars present in the United States (and it’s conceivable that not all of said vehicles are used on a daily basis).
Internal combustion engines, by comparison, are relatively inefficient at converting on-board fuel energy, such as gasoline, to forward propulsion as most of the energy is wasted as heat. Electric motors are more efficient in converting stored energy into driving vehicle, and electric drive vehicles do not consume energy while at rest or coasting, and some of the energy lost when braking can be captured and reused through regenerative braking, which can capture as much as one fifth of the energy normally lost during braking. Typically, conventional gasoline engines use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power their accessories, and comparative diesel engines can reach on-board efficiencies of roughly 20%, while electric drive vehicles can have on-board efficiency of around 80%. Most of the other 20% is due to the inefficiencies present in batteries, which can theoretically be reduced.
The current problems with electric cars are batteries and the power source (although it’s conceivable that a mild infrastructure change to large multiple car battery powering stations, or parking lots, would be beneficial). In the United States, currently, around 44.9% of energy is produced by coal, 23.4% is produced by natural gas, 20.3% is produced by nuclear power, 6.9% is produced by hydroelectric dams, 3.6% is produced by various renewable sources, and around 1% is produced by petroleum products. This means that a large portion of the energy is still produced by carbon producing materials, meaning that electricity currently still produces a large amount of polluting by products. If nuclear power, chiefly uranium for electricity production, was increased by just 5 times its current amount, then nearly all pollution from electrical emissions could be eliminated (except for, potentially, the costly to clean up nuclear waste). Luckily, thorium lends insight on how to replace electricity cheaply without the potential dangers of other forms of nuclear power for potentially hundreds of thousands of years. As well, it would be stable, abundant, and relatively powerful for isolated energy production, making it an ideal source of power for Cargo boats or Aircraft carriers. Additionally, if solar panels were used, it would be possible to generate practically fuel-less, stable, clean energy for millions of year, and due to recent advancements and potential geographic location in regards to large scale production (such as Antarctica) it may become a feasible alternative in the near future.
Despite the high potential for clean energy and electrical production, current batteries still possess major problems, including range on a single charge, recharge time, and battery life.
Hydrogen Powered Cars
Hydrogen Powered Cars
A hydrogen vehicle is a vehicle that uses hydrogen as its onboard fuel for motive power. Hydrogen vehicles include hydrogen fueled space rockets, as well as automobiles and other transportation vehicles. The power plants of such vehicles convert the chemical energy of hydrogen to mechanical energy either by burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine, or by reacting hydrogen with oxygen in a fuel cell to run electric motors. Widespread use of hydrogen for fueling transportation is a key element of a proposed hydrogen economy.
Proposed hydrogen power, for powering cars, possesses a number of problems. The transportation and storage of hydrogen would be a relatively difficult thing to do. It can react spontaneously with the oxygen in the air (sunlight could very easily set it off and it has a 4-75% air to fuel ratio for combustion), and so any major disruption to an engine or a fuel line could result in catastrophic explosions; while gasoline needs exposure to oxygen to burn and remains as a liquid that quickly evaporates, hydrogen would naturally diffuse itself (being lighter than air and rapidly expanding) and would most likely burn spontaneously when coming in contact with the air, generating massive amounts of hot steam and fire. If a fuel tank were to be punctured, say inside of a hydrogen engine, potentially by minute amounts of hydrogen coming out of a small leak and erupting, then the entire engine could potentially erupt in a fireball as it would destroy pieces of the engine, expose more hydrogen to the air, and then cause a larger explosion until the entire engine was destroyed and more hydrogen was leaked into the air.
If we ignore the danger, it’s also highly inefficient as well. Any potential method proposed in using hydrogen would require electricity, more specifically a waste of electricity. We would end up using more energy or electricity to generate the hydrogen required to power the vehicle due to the inefficiencies in all of the process involved to create the hydrogen than if we just used straight electricity by itself. As well, many hydrogen vehicles propose methods which leak water vapor or hydrogen into the air. Water vapor and Hydrogen are both indirect greenhouse gases, and both can contribute to global warming; if cars began pumping out equivalent amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide, weather patterns, temperatures, and various things in nature could start to take sudden shifts. Both hydrogen and water vapor absorb energy that would ordinarily break down carbon dioxide, and water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas in and of itself; if the life of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was doubled, or tripled for instance, which would only take a marginal increase in water vapor or hydrogen, our current temperature levels could sky rocket and global warming, among other things, could rapidly begin to exhibit significant problems.
According to the United States Department of Energy "Producing hydrogen from natural gas does result in some greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to ICE vehicles using gasoline, however, fuel cell vehicles using hydrogen produced from natural gas reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60%.” Some of the energy present in natural gas is wasted through this process, as well. If the fuel efficiency of gasoline vehicles were doubled, for instance, you could actually produce less greenhouse gases then you would from using hydrogen vehicles based on the efficiency of their engines and the process used to generate hydrogen, which is mostly from natural gas. If hydrogen was produced through dissociation with water, then an enormous amount of electricity would be wasted. The reaction between hydrogen and oxygen is extremely powerful, and often used in rockets to get to outerspace. The same amount of energy would have to be put in order to split the bonds of hydrogen and oxygen, which are relatively strong, and so would require and enormous amount of energy.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, fuel cells are generally between 40–60% energy efficient. In 2006, a study for the IEEE showed that for hydrogen produced via electrolysis of water: "Only about 25% of the power generated from wind, water, or sun is converted to practical use." The study further noted that "Electricity obtained from hydrogen fuel cells appears to be four times as expensive as electricity drawn from the electrical transmission grid. ... Because of the high energy losses [hydrogen] cannot compete with electricity.”
Essentially, converting electric energy into hydrogen chemical energy and then converting that hydrogen back into electricity would be a waste of electricity and enrrgy, and end up using more electricity and being more costly than if one used straight electric to begin with. Furthermore, the transportation of hydrogen would be more energy costly than that of electric grid transmission and result in potential catastrophic accidents. Of course assuming, that we somehow established an infrastructure to transport hydrogen around the United States or the world safely and developed a relatively non-hazardous method of filling a car with the hydrogen and then storing the hydrogen, we would still be emitting an enormous amount of water vapor into the atmosphere, which could rapidly change the weather over specific geographic areas where an enormous amount of cars are and potentially have a devastating effect on global warming, coupled with the potential direct greenhouse gases present in the processes used to obtain Hydrogen.
Areas with temperatures below freezing are a concern with the operation of fuel cells. Current operational fuel cells have an internal vaporous water environment that could solidify if the fuel cell and contents are not kept above freezing, or 0° Celsius (32°F). Most fuel cell designs are not robust enough to survive or operate effectively in below-freezing environments. If the contents of the fuel cell were frozen solid, especially before start up of the fuel cell, they would most likely not be able to begin working. Once running however, heat can be a byproduct of the fuel cell process, which could keep the fuel cell at an adequate operational temperature to function correctly. This of course makes startup of the fuel cell a concern in cold weather operation. Places such as Alaska where temperatures can reach −40 °C (−40 °F) at startup would not be use current fuel cells. However, Ballard Power Systems announced in 2006 that it had already hit the U.S. DoE's 2010 target for cold weather starting, which was roughly 50% power achieved in 30 seconds at -20 °C.
In short, Hydrogen is a difficult to sustain, dangerous highly reactive fuel that would be difficult to implement given the current infrastructure and even with the best theoretical estimates for fuel efficiency is still 10-20 years in the future and could potentially cause more hazardous effects to the environment and global warming than other clean alternatives or simply improved designs in modern vehicles. It is best reserved for specialist applications where Hydrogen is desired, and where in small amounts could be relatively useful and not require a changed infrastructure and reduced safety codes to be capable of being sufficiently implemented.
At least four things would be required for this to be viable in any case, chiefly being a remodeled infrastructure design for the safe transportation and deliverance of hydrogen, increased efficiency in the production of hydrogen, breakthroughs in fuel cell technology, some that solve fundamental problems with fuel cells, and the ability to store hydrogen in a reasonably sized container.
Considering that the primary source of hydrogen at the moment is natural gas and other hydrocarbons, it’s conceivable that this would benefit current petroleum suppliers, however.
A hydrogen vehicle is a vehicle that uses hydrogen as its onboard fuel for motive power. Hydrogen vehicles include hydrogen fueled space rockets, as well as automobiles and other transportation vehicles. The power plants of such vehicles convert the chemical energy of hydrogen to mechanical energy either by burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine, or by reacting hydrogen with oxygen in a fuel cell to run electric motors. Widespread use of hydrogen for fueling transportation is a key element of a proposed hydrogen economy.
Proposed hydrogen power, for powering cars, possesses a number of problems. The transportation and storage of hydrogen would be a relatively difficult thing to do. It can react spontaneously with the oxygen in the air (sunlight could very easily set it off and it has a 4-75% air to fuel ratio for combustion), and so any major disruption to an engine or a fuel line could result in catastrophic explosions; while gasoline needs exposure to oxygen to burn and remains as a liquid that quickly evaporates, hydrogen would naturally diffuse itself (being lighter than air and rapidly expanding) and would most likely burn spontaneously when coming in contact with the air, generating massive amounts of hot steam and fire. If a fuel tank were to be punctured, say inside of a hydrogen engine, potentially by minute amounts of hydrogen coming out of a small leak and erupting, then the entire engine could potentially erupt in a fireball as it would destroy pieces of the engine, expose more hydrogen to the air, and then cause a larger explosion until the entire engine was destroyed and more hydrogen was leaked into the air.
If we ignore the danger, it’s also highly inefficient as well. Any potential method proposed in using hydrogen would require electricity, more specifically a waste of electricity. We would end up using more energy or electricity to generate the hydrogen required to power the vehicle due to the inefficiencies in all of the process involved to create the hydrogen than if we just used straight electricity by itself. As well, many hydrogen vehicles propose methods which leak water vapor or hydrogen into the air. Water vapor and Hydrogen are both indirect greenhouse gases, and both can contribute to global warming; if cars began pumping out equivalent amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide, weather patterns, temperatures, and various things in nature could start to take sudden shifts. Both hydrogen and water vapor absorb energy that would ordinarily break down carbon dioxide, and water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas in and of itself; if the life of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was doubled, or tripled for instance, which would only take a marginal increase in water vapor or hydrogen, our current temperature levels could sky rocket and global warming, among other things, could rapidly begin to exhibit significant problems.
According to the United States Department of Energy "Producing hydrogen from natural gas does result in some greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to ICE vehicles using gasoline, however, fuel cell vehicles using hydrogen produced from natural gas reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60%.” Some of the energy present in natural gas is wasted through this process, as well. If the fuel efficiency of gasoline vehicles were doubled, for instance, you could actually produce less greenhouse gases then you would from using hydrogen vehicles based on the efficiency of their engines and the process used to generate hydrogen, which is mostly from natural gas. If hydrogen was produced through dissociation with water, then an enormous amount of electricity would be wasted. The reaction between hydrogen and oxygen is extremely powerful, and often used in rockets to get to outerspace. The same amount of energy would have to be put in order to split the bonds of hydrogen and oxygen, which are relatively strong, and so would require and enormous amount of energy.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, fuel cells are generally between 40–60% energy efficient. In 2006, a study for the IEEE showed that for hydrogen produced via electrolysis of water: "Only about 25% of the power generated from wind, water, or sun is converted to practical use." The study further noted that "Electricity obtained from hydrogen fuel cells appears to be four times as expensive as electricity drawn from the electrical transmission grid. ... Because of the high energy losses [hydrogen] cannot compete with electricity.”
Essentially, converting electric energy into hydrogen chemical energy and then converting that hydrogen back into electricity would be a waste of electricity and enrrgy, and end up using more electricity and being more costly than if one used straight electric to begin with. Furthermore, the transportation of hydrogen would be more energy costly than that of electric grid transmission and result in potential catastrophic accidents. Of course assuming, that we somehow established an infrastructure to transport hydrogen around the United States or the world safely and developed a relatively non-hazardous method of filling a car with the hydrogen and then storing the hydrogen, we would still be emitting an enormous amount of water vapor into the atmosphere, which could rapidly change the weather over specific geographic areas where an enormous amount of cars are and potentially have a devastating effect on global warming, coupled with the potential direct greenhouse gases present in the processes used to obtain Hydrogen.
Areas with temperatures below freezing are a concern with the operation of fuel cells. Current operational fuel cells have an internal vaporous water environment that could solidify if the fuel cell and contents are not kept above freezing, or 0° Celsius (32°F). Most fuel cell designs are not robust enough to survive or operate effectively in below-freezing environments. If the contents of the fuel cell were frozen solid, especially before start up of the fuel cell, they would most likely not be able to begin working. Once running however, heat can be a byproduct of the fuel cell process, which could keep the fuel cell at an adequate operational temperature to function correctly. This of course makes startup of the fuel cell a concern in cold weather operation. Places such as Alaska where temperatures can reach −40 °C (−40 °F) at startup would not be use current fuel cells. However, Ballard Power Systems announced in 2006 that it had already hit the U.S. DoE's 2010 target for cold weather starting, which was roughly 50% power achieved in 30 seconds at -20 °C.
In short, Hydrogen is a difficult to sustain, dangerous highly reactive fuel that would be difficult to implement given the current infrastructure and even with the best theoretical estimates for fuel efficiency is still 10-20 years in the future and could potentially cause more hazardous effects to the environment and global warming than other clean alternatives or simply improved designs in modern vehicles. It is best reserved for specialist applications where Hydrogen is desired, and where in small amounts could be relatively useful and not require a changed infrastructure and reduced safety codes to be capable of being sufficiently implemented.
At least four things would be required for this to be viable in any case, chiefly being a remodeled infrastructure design for the safe transportation and deliverance of hydrogen, increased efficiency in the production of hydrogen, breakthroughs in fuel cell technology, some that solve fundamental problems with fuel cells, and the ability to store hydrogen in a reasonably sized container.
Considering that the primary source of hydrogen at the moment is natural gas and other hydrocarbons, it’s conceivable that this would benefit current petroleum suppliers, however.
Natural Gas
Natural Gas Vehicles
A natural gas vehicle or NGV is considered to be an alternative fuel vehicle that uses compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a potentially cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels. Worldwide, there were around 12.7 million natural gas vehicles by 2010. Combustion of one cubic meter of Natural Gas yields approximately 38 MJ (10.6 kWh). Natural gas has the highest energy/carbon ratio of any widely available fossil fuel, and thus potentially produces less carbon dioxide per unit of energy. Natural gas is predominantly methane, although smaller amounts of ethane, butane, and propone may be present in varying amounts. Natural gas may also be mixed with biogas, produced from landfills or wastewater (or potentially other sources, such as from cows or farmland), which wouldn’t otherwise increase the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere.
NGVs and especially CNG tends to corrode and wear the parts of an engine less rapidly than Gasoline; Thus its quite common to find Natural gas vehicles with relatively high mileage, comparable to diesel engines, at as over 500,000 miles. Emissions are cleaner, there is generally less wasted fuel, and lower emissions of carbon and lower particulate emissions per equivalent distance traveled, potentially making it a considerably cleaner alternative to gasoline engines.
Natural gas powered vehicles are generally considered to be safer than gasoline-powered vehicles for many reasons. Natural gas has a limited range of flammability, meaning it requires the correct mixture of air and fuel to burn, with the required air to fuel ratio being around 5-15%. The ignition temperature required to burn natural gas is also higher, at around 1100 degrees Fahrenheit, which is far more than gasoline at 475 degrees or diesel at 410. As well, natural gas tends to naturally dissipate through the air, being lighter than air, and is much harder to ignite if released into the air. Generally, Natural gas has a relatively strong odor added to it, allowing for the detection of a leak to be significantly easier. As well, natural gas is considered to be non-toxic.
The use of natural gas vehicles faces several limitations however, including fuel storage and infrastructure available for delivery and distribution at potential fueling stations. Natural gas is usually stored under pressure in cylinders, whether it is CNG (compressed) or LNG (liquefied), and as of now these cylinders are generally located in the vehicle's trunk, usually reducing the space available for other uses, particularly during long distance travel. This problem can easily be solved in factory-built CNVs that install the tanks under the body of the vehicle, thanks to a more reasonable positioning of components, leaving more space in the trunk, being a virtual non-issue.
NGV's can potentially be refueled virtually anywhere from existing natural gas lines. This makes home refueling stations that can tap into such lines a possible fuel source.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated the potential benefits of CNG versus gasoline based on the inherently cleaner-burning characteristics of natural gas. They found that it could potentially reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 90%-97%, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%, reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 35%-60%, potentially reduces non-methane hydrocarbon emissions by by 50%-75, emit fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants, emit little or no particulate matter and virtually eliminate evaporative emissions.
Natural gas could easily serve as a cheap, clean, viable source of fuel to power cars, and with simple infrastructure changes or increased adaptability to home natural gas sources, as well as a greater increase to natural gas canisters, could be relatively easy to implement. Natural gas cars may be able to be refilled from a person's home, and natural gas could serve multiple purposes. However, like any hydrocarbon, it's natural sources are limited and it does produce some pollutants; the Moon Titan has over 300 times the Natural Gas as earth, being a potential source for natural gas in the future, meaning that future supplies, in the far future, may not be a concern.
A natural gas vehicle or NGV is considered to be an alternative fuel vehicle that uses compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a potentially cleaner alternative to other fossil fuels. Worldwide, there were around 12.7 million natural gas vehicles by 2010. Combustion of one cubic meter of Natural Gas yields approximately 38 MJ (10.6 kWh). Natural gas has the highest energy/carbon ratio of any widely available fossil fuel, and thus potentially produces less carbon dioxide per unit of energy. Natural gas is predominantly methane, although smaller amounts of ethane, butane, and propone may be present in varying amounts. Natural gas may also be mixed with biogas, produced from landfills or wastewater (or potentially other sources, such as from cows or farmland), which wouldn’t otherwise increase the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere.
NGVs and especially CNG tends to corrode and wear the parts of an engine less rapidly than Gasoline; Thus its quite common to find Natural gas vehicles with relatively high mileage, comparable to diesel engines, at as over 500,000 miles. Emissions are cleaner, there is generally less wasted fuel, and lower emissions of carbon and lower particulate emissions per equivalent distance traveled, potentially making it a considerably cleaner alternative to gasoline engines.
Natural gas powered vehicles are generally considered to be safer than gasoline-powered vehicles for many reasons. Natural gas has a limited range of flammability, meaning it requires the correct mixture of air and fuel to burn, with the required air to fuel ratio being around 5-15%. The ignition temperature required to burn natural gas is also higher, at around 1100 degrees Fahrenheit, which is far more than gasoline at 475 degrees or diesel at 410. As well, natural gas tends to naturally dissipate through the air, being lighter than air, and is much harder to ignite if released into the air. Generally, Natural gas has a relatively strong odor added to it, allowing for the detection of a leak to be significantly easier. As well, natural gas is considered to be non-toxic.
The use of natural gas vehicles faces several limitations however, including fuel storage and infrastructure available for delivery and distribution at potential fueling stations. Natural gas is usually stored under pressure in cylinders, whether it is CNG (compressed) or LNG (liquefied), and as of now these cylinders are generally located in the vehicle's trunk, usually reducing the space available for other uses, particularly during long distance travel. This problem can easily be solved in factory-built CNVs that install the tanks under the body of the vehicle, thanks to a more reasonable positioning of components, leaving more space in the trunk, being a virtual non-issue.
NGV's can potentially be refueled virtually anywhere from existing natural gas lines. This makes home refueling stations that can tap into such lines a possible fuel source.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated the potential benefits of CNG versus gasoline based on the inherently cleaner-burning characteristics of natural gas. They found that it could potentially reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 90%-97%, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%, reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 35%-60%, potentially reduces non-methane hydrocarbon emissions by by 50%-75, emit fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants, emit little or no particulate matter and virtually eliminate evaporative emissions.
Natural gas could easily serve as a cheap, clean, viable source of fuel to power cars, and with simple infrastructure changes or increased adaptability to home natural gas sources, as well as a greater increase to natural gas canisters, could be relatively easy to implement. Natural gas cars may be able to be refilled from a person's home, and natural gas could serve multiple purposes. However, like any hydrocarbon, it's natural sources are limited and it does produce some pollutants; the Moon Titan has over 300 times the Natural Gas as earth, being a potential source for natural gas in the future, meaning that future supplies, in the far future, may not be a concern.
Ethanol as Fuel for Combustion
Ethanol
Ethanol fuel is simply ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, the same type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages. It is most often used as a bio-fuel additive for gasoline and automobiles. Ethanol fuel has a "gasoline gallon equivalency", or GGE value of roughly 1.5 gallons, or is roughly 66% as powerful as gasoline. In 5-10% fuel blends with gasoline the fuel efficiency only seems to be decreased marginally, if at all. The Ford Model T, produced August 12, 1908 was capable of running on ethanol, kerosene or gasoline, and is generally considered to be one of the first widely commercially available cars.
Several full life cycle ("Well to Wheels" or WTW) studies have found that corn ethanol reduced greenhouse gas emissions when compared to gasoline. In 2007 a team led by Farrel from the University of California, Berkeley, evaluated six previous studies and concluded that corn ethanol would only reduce greenhouse emissions by 13% . Despite this, a more commonly cited figure is 20 to 30 percent, and it is considered to possible to produce an 80 to 85% reduction if cellulosic ethanol was used. Both of these figures were estimated by Wang from the Argonne National Laboratory, based on review of 22 studies conducted between 1979 and 2005, and simulations with Argonne's GREET model; all of these studies included direct land use changes. None of these studies considered the effects of indirect land-use changes, and while their impact was recognized, its estimation was considered too complex and far more difficult to model than direct land use changes.
The reduction estimates on carbon emissions for a given biofuel depend on many assumptions regarding several variables, including crop productivity, agricultural practices, and distillery power source and energy efficiency. The primary problem associated with ethanol is land usage. Modern gasoline engines are already capable of using a small percentage of ethanol fuel blends, and early gasoline engines were capable of using multiple types of fuels with relatively little difficulty. With a few changes in engine function, ordinary engines could be converted into ethanol engines or be integrated into ordinary cars quite easily. Many race cars use ethanol, and ethanol has a lower ignition point than gas. Ethanol generally has about 115 octane and E85 fuel (85% ethanol, and 15% other hydrocarbon by volume) has about 105 octane. It burns cooler than gasoline and will generally extend engine life by preventing the burning of engine valves and prevents the build-up of olefins in fuel injectors, keeping the fuel system clean. Ethanol by itself can currently be used with 10% water blends and still retain a roughly equal fuel efficiency to 100% ethanol.
However a large amount of land would be required to produce the ethanol, potentially taking away from farmland. The concerns about the amount of land required has been reduced some, as cellulosic ethanol has been shown be capable of producing more ethanol than previously believed possible. Cellulosic ethanol offers promise because cellulose fibers, a major and virtually universal component in plant cells walls, can be used to produce ethanol. According to the International Energy Agency, cellulosic ethanol could allow ethanol fuels to “play a much bigger role in the future than previously thought”. An alternative process to produce bio-ethanol from algae is supposedly being developed by the company Algenol. Rather than grow algae and then harvest and ferment it, the algae grows in sunlight and produces ethanol directly which is supposedly removed without killing the algae. Algenol claims the process can produce roughly 6,000 US gallons per acre per year compared with 400 US gallons per acre from corn production.
Of course, as with any potential bio-fuel, the bio-mass burned and released into the atmosphere will have trouble getting back into the soil, meaning that the long term use of bio-fuels and it’s potential detraction of nutrients from local or potentially farmland growing soil remains an issue. Even if high efficiencies were achieved it’s difficult to ascertain how much bio-mass that could be used for food production would be wasted. If within a closed system, such as an ethanol burning steam turbine device with high efficiency feeding the exhaust into algae, it may be possible to reduce much of this problem, although how much so is uncertain.
Ethanol fuel is simply ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, the same type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages. It is most often used as a bio-fuel additive for gasoline and automobiles. Ethanol fuel has a "gasoline gallon equivalency", or GGE value of roughly 1.5 gallons, or is roughly 66% as powerful as gasoline. In 5-10% fuel blends with gasoline the fuel efficiency only seems to be decreased marginally, if at all. The Ford Model T, produced August 12, 1908 was capable of running on ethanol, kerosene or gasoline, and is generally considered to be one of the first widely commercially available cars.
Several full life cycle ("Well to Wheels" or WTW) studies have found that corn ethanol reduced greenhouse gas emissions when compared to gasoline. In 2007 a team led by Farrel from the University of California, Berkeley, evaluated six previous studies and concluded that corn ethanol would only reduce greenhouse emissions by 13% . Despite this, a more commonly cited figure is 20 to 30 percent, and it is considered to possible to produce an 80 to 85% reduction if cellulosic ethanol was used. Both of these figures were estimated by Wang from the Argonne National Laboratory, based on review of 22 studies conducted between 1979 and 2005, and simulations with Argonne's GREET model; all of these studies included direct land use changes. None of these studies considered the effects of indirect land-use changes, and while their impact was recognized, its estimation was considered too complex and far more difficult to model than direct land use changes.
The reduction estimates on carbon emissions for a given biofuel depend on many assumptions regarding several variables, including crop productivity, agricultural practices, and distillery power source and energy efficiency. The primary problem associated with ethanol is land usage. Modern gasoline engines are already capable of using a small percentage of ethanol fuel blends, and early gasoline engines were capable of using multiple types of fuels with relatively little difficulty. With a few changes in engine function, ordinary engines could be converted into ethanol engines or be integrated into ordinary cars quite easily. Many race cars use ethanol, and ethanol has a lower ignition point than gas. Ethanol generally has about 115 octane and E85 fuel (85% ethanol, and 15% other hydrocarbon by volume) has about 105 octane. It burns cooler than gasoline and will generally extend engine life by preventing the burning of engine valves and prevents the build-up of olefins in fuel injectors, keeping the fuel system clean. Ethanol by itself can currently be used with 10% water blends and still retain a roughly equal fuel efficiency to 100% ethanol.
However a large amount of land would be required to produce the ethanol, potentially taking away from farmland. The concerns about the amount of land required has been reduced some, as cellulosic ethanol has been shown be capable of producing more ethanol than previously believed possible. Cellulosic ethanol offers promise because cellulose fibers, a major and virtually universal component in plant cells walls, can be used to produce ethanol. According to the International Energy Agency, cellulosic ethanol could allow ethanol fuels to “play a much bigger role in the future than previously thought”. An alternative process to produce bio-ethanol from algae is supposedly being developed by the company Algenol. Rather than grow algae and then harvest and ferment it, the algae grows in sunlight and produces ethanol directly which is supposedly removed without killing the algae. Algenol claims the process can produce roughly 6,000 US gallons per acre per year compared with 400 US gallons per acre from corn production.
Of course, as with any potential bio-fuel, the bio-mass burned and released into the atmosphere will have trouble getting back into the soil, meaning that the long term use of bio-fuels and it’s potential detraction of nutrients from local or potentially farmland growing soil remains an issue. Even if high efficiencies were achieved it’s difficult to ascertain how much bio-mass that could be used for food production would be wasted. If within a closed system, such as an ethanol burning steam turbine device with high efficiency feeding the exhaust into algae, it may be possible to reduce much of this problem, although how much so is uncertain.
Gasoline Car Ideas
Gasoline
Most Gasoline cars are propelled by an internal combustion engine, fueled by the deflagration of gasoline (also known as petrol) or diesel. They generally work by using pistons and a spark igniter to ignite the vaporized fuel, in order to cause combustion and generate forward motion on the piston through the result of heated expanding gases.
The average car in the United States gets roughly 21 miles per gallon, and produces around 15-20 pounds of carbon dioxide and water vapor per gallon. A gallon of gasoline is roughly 6 pounds, however when the weight of the oxygen used in the fuel cycle is calculated, with oxygen being roughly twice as heavy as carbon per atom and two atoms being present per molecule, the addition of the oxygen present in the air adds roughly 3.6-3.7 times more weight, increasing the weight of the carbon present in the gasoline (roughly 5.5 lb) to around 15-20 pounds of carbon dioxide and water vapor. This is not a perfect combustion reaction, however, as carbon monoxide and various other chemicals are produced and not all of the gasoline is generally burned in an engine.
Various new vehicles hope to improve the efficiency of gasoline use, or mpg, which could reduce pollutant emissions and essentially reduce the price of gasoline by reducing the amount required to operate a vehicle. Currently, there are cars that exist that are capable of around 40-50 miles per gallon highway, which are considered relatively fuel efficient, although they are often rare or expensive.
Various diesel engines are capable of achieving better gas mileage, with the average European diesel car getting around 40 miles per gallon. Selling those cars in the United States is difficult however, because of emission standards, notes Walter McManus, a fuel economy expert at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, “For the most part, European diesels don’t meet U.S. emission standards.” Some Super charged diesel engines can get better gas mileage, a notable example being the Smart Fortwo, capable of getting around 69.2 mpg.
Hybrid cars show some promise. They essentially use their engine to power a turbine in order to generate electricity to power the car, generally producing better fuel efficiency. Some Hybrid engines can generate around 35-40 miles per gallon, while many others can produce much more. Notably, the estimated fuel-efficiency rating for the Toyota Prius, using the U.S. EPA combined cycle, is 50 mpg, being one of the first mass produced gasoline hybrids widely available on the market. The 2000 Honda Insight ranks as one of the most fuel efficient United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified gasoline-fueled vehicles ever, with a highway rating of around 61 miles per gallon and combined city/highway rating of around 53 miles per gallon. For the Nissan leaf, The US Environmental Protection Agency official range is 117 kilometres (73 mi), with an energy consumption of 765 kilojoules per kilometre (34 kW·h/100 mi) and rated the Leaf's combined fuel economy at 99 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (2.4 L/100 km). The Leaf has a range of 175 km (109 mi) on the New European Driving Cycle.
Extremely notably, the Aptera 2 series vehicle was notable as it was capable of getting around 300 miles per gallon for the first 120 miles of driving if the battery of the vehicle was charged before departure, and around 130 MPG if it was not. This was in large part attributed to its lightweight aerodynamic frame, although Aptera Motors emphasized that safety was not traded off for efficiency, citing crash test simulations and component crush testing as indicating excellent survivability–on par with more conventional vehicles. Its maximum speed was cited to be around 85 MPH, and it could reach 0-60 mph in roughly 10 seconds. Sadly, the Aptera Company went out of business on December 2, 2011, and is no longer producing the Aptera 2 car and gave the deposits presented by various people back.
An interesting new type of engine is the “Wave Disk Engine”. The "wave-disk engine" has the potential to have better fuel efficiency compared to normal combustion engine designs and can potentially save weight. Possible applications include charging batteries in hybrid vehicles, which could free up about 1,000 pounds of weight. It promises to be up 3.5 times more efficient (to 60%), 30% lighter, 30% cheaper to manufacture than an equivalent conventional piston engine, and to reduce emissions by over 90%.
Michigan State University and Warsaw Institute of Technology researchers claim to have a prototype wave-disk engine and electricity generator that could replace current backup generator technology in plug-in electric hybrid vehicles. The research team is led by the Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering Norbert Muller and has been given $2.5 million in funding from the United States Department of Energy's ARPA-E program. Muller's team hopes to have a vehicle-sized 25 kilowatt wave disc engine generator ready by late 2013.
While improved fuel efficiency of cars could help reduce the requirement of gasoline and potentially reduce the price of its use, as well as reduce pollution emissions, ultimately it will always be constrained to gasoline usage and require fossil fuels, which will most likely be progressively harder to obtain, potentially raising its price in the future.
If the United States, for instance, was capable of reducing the gasoline usage (by possibly increasing its fuel efficiency) by three times its amount, then its dependence on foreign oil may be eliminated. At its peak, in 2004 roughly 65% of the United State’s oil use was from foreign sources; the Energy Information Administration projects that U.S. oil imports will remain flat and consumption will grow, so net imports will decline to approximately 54% of U.S. oil consumption by 2030. This means that if the fuel efficiency of most modern vehicles was simply tripled in the United States, then foreign oil reliance could be eliminated. The United States may even produce a surplus of oil each year, reducing the cost of oil or potentially allowing the U.S. to even sell oil to other countries. By simply increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, which on average are only about 20% mechanically efficient, the virtual price of oil could be lowered, emissions could be reduced and our dependence on foreign oil could be eliminated; if such engines could be produced cheaply or in any large amounts, much of the United States (and potentially other countries’) oil and energy problems could be eliminated.
Another possible way to do this would be with carbon fiber- carbon fiber is generally stronger than steel but has 1/5th the density. While expensive, most of its cost of carbon fiber is in energy production as it’s produced from the same line of material as nylon and rayon. By reducing its energy cost (potentially with Thorium other cheap power sources) it may be possible to create carbon fiber frames at a relatively affordable cost. Even reducing the cost of carbon fiber by 1/3 it's amount would put it in line with steel; while it's currently 15 dollar per pound and steel is less than 1, because carbon fiber's density is less than 1/5th the amount of steel (while not sacrificing any strength) it should equate to less than a dollar per unit equivalent, meaning that it's cost would be the same as steel. While the entire vehicle couldn’t be expected to be lowered in weight by 5 times it's amount if it was steel (as there is an engine block, interior, and many other pieces that may remain steel or aluminum or that wouldn’t be reduced in weight as a result of changed material), getting to roughly 3-4 times lighter weight may be a feasible reality. In doing so, it would be directly possible to increase the fuel efficiency, safety and engine life of a vehicle by decreasing its weight by the same amount.
Most Gasoline cars are propelled by an internal combustion engine, fueled by the deflagration of gasoline (also known as petrol) or diesel. They generally work by using pistons and a spark igniter to ignite the vaporized fuel, in order to cause combustion and generate forward motion on the piston through the result of heated expanding gases.
The average car in the United States gets roughly 21 miles per gallon, and produces around 15-20 pounds of carbon dioxide and water vapor per gallon. A gallon of gasoline is roughly 6 pounds, however when the weight of the oxygen used in the fuel cycle is calculated, with oxygen being roughly twice as heavy as carbon per atom and two atoms being present per molecule, the addition of the oxygen present in the air adds roughly 3.6-3.7 times more weight, increasing the weight of the carbon present in the gasoline (roughly 5.5 lb) to around 15-20 pounds of carbon dioxide and water vapor. This is not a perfect combustion reaction, however, as carbon monoxide and various other chemicals are produced and not all of the gasoline is generally burned in an engine.
Various new vehicles hope to improve the efficiency of gasoline use, or mpg, which could reduce pollutant emissions and essentially reduce the price of gasoline by reducing the amount required to operate a vehicle. Currently, there are cars that exist that are capable of around 40-50 miles per gallon highway, which are considered relatively fuel efficient, although they are often rare or expensive.
Various diesel engines are capable of achieving better gas mileage, with the average European diesel car getting around 40 miles per gallon. Selling those cars in the United States is difficult however, because of emission standards, notes Walter McManus, a fuel economy expert at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, “For the most part, European diesels don’t meet U.S. emission standards.” Some Super charged diesel engines can get better gas mileage, a notable example being the Smart Fortwo, capable of getting around 69.2 mpg.
Hybrid cars show some promise. They essentially use their engine to power a turbine in order to generate electricity to power the car, generally producing better fuel efficiency. Some Hybrid engines can generate around 35-40 miles per gallon, while many others can produce much more. Notably, the estimated fuel-efficiency rating for the Toyota Prius, using the U.S. EPA combined cycle, is 50 mpg, being one of the first mass produced gasoline hybrids widely available on the market. The 2000 Honda Insight ranks as one of the most fuel efficient United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified gasoline-fueled vehicles ever, with a highway rating of around 61 miles per gallon and combined city/highway rating of around 53 miles per gallon. For the Nissan leaf, The US Environmental Protection Agency official range is 117 kilometres (73 mi), with an energy consumption of 765 kilojoules per kilometre (34 kW·h/100 mi) and rated the Leaf's combined fuel economy at 99 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (2.4 L/100 km). The Leaf has a range of 175 km (109 mi) on the New European Driving Cycle.
Extremely notably, the Aptera 2 series vehicle was notable as it was capable of getting around 300 miles per gallon for the first 120 miles of driving if the battery of the vehicle was charged before departure, and around 130 MPG if it was not. This was in large part attributed to its lightweight aerodynamic frame, although Aptera Motors emphasized that safety was not traded off for efficiency, citing crash test simulations and component crush testing as indicating excellent survivability–on par with more conventional vehicles. Its maximum speed was cited to be around 85 MPH, and it could reach 0-60 mph in roughly 10 seconds. Sadly, the Aptera Company went out of business on December 2, 2011, and is no longer producing the Aptera 2 car and gave the deposits presented by various people back.
An interesting new type of engine is the “Wave Disk Engine”. The "wave-disk engine" has the potential to have better fuel efficiency compared to normal combustion engine designs and can potentially save weight. Possible applications include charging batteries in hybrid vehicles, which could free up about 1,000 pounds of weight. It promises to be up 3.5 times more efficient (to 60%), 30% lighter, 30% cheaper to manufacture than an equivalent conventional piston engine, and to reduce emissions by over 90%.
Michigan State University and Warsaw Institute of Technology researchers claim to have a prototype wave-disk engine and electricity generator that could replace current backup generator technology in plug-in electric hybrid vehicles. The research team is led by the Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering Norbert Muller and has been given $2.5 million in funding from the United States Department of Energy's ARPA-E program. Muller's team hopes to have a vehicle-sized 25 kilowatt wave disc engine generator ready by late 2013.
While improved fuel efficiency of cars could help reduce the requirement of gasoline and potentially reduce the price of its use, as well as reduce pollution emissions, ultimately it will always be constrained to gasoline usage and require fossil fuels, which will most likely be progressively harder to obtain, potentially raising its price in the future.
If the United States, for instance, was capable of reducing the gasoline usage (by possibly increasing its fuel efficiency) by three times its amount, then its dependence on foreign oil may be eliminated. At its peak, in 2004 roughly 65% of the United State’s oil use was from foreign sources; the Energy Information Administration projects that U.S. oil imports will remain flat and consumption will grow, so net imports will decline to approximately 54% of U.S. oil consumption by 2030. This means that if the fuel efficiency of most modern vehicles was simply tripled in the United States, then foreign oil reliance could be eliminated. The United States may even produce a surplus of oil each year, reducing the cost of oil or potentially allowing the U.S. to even sell oil to other countries. By simply increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, which on average are only about 20% mechanically efficient, the virtual price of oil could be lowered, emissions could be reduced and our dependence on foreign oil could be eliminated; if such engines could be produced cheaply or in any large amounts, much of the United States (and potentially other countries’) oil and energy problems could be eliminated.
Another possible way to do this would be with carbon fiber- carbon fiber is generally stronger than steel but has 1/5th the density. While expensive, most of its cost of carbon fiber is in energy production as it’s produced from the same line of material as nylon and rayon. By reducing its energy cost (potentially with Thorium other cheap power sources) it may be possible to create carbon fiber frames at a relatively affordable cost. Even reducing the cost of carbon fiber by 1/3 it's amount would put it in line with steel; while it's currently 15 dollar per pound and steel is less than 1, because carbon fiber's density is less than 1/5th the amount of steel (while not sacrificing any strength) it should equate to less than a dollar per unit equivalent, meaning that it's cost would be the same as steel. While the entire vehicle couldn’t be expected to be lowered in weight by 5 times it's amount if it was steel (as there is an engine block, interior, and many other pieces that may remain steel or aluminum or that wouldn’t be reduced in weight as a result of changed material), getting to roughly 3-4 times lighter weight may be a feasible reality. In doing so, it would be directly possible to increase the fuel efficiency, safety and engine life of a vehicle by decreasing its weight by the same amount.
Gasoline for Electricity Generation
Gasoline for Electricity Generation
Gasoline is an incredibly powerful fuel source, possessing around 21.5 million joules per pound, compared to coal at around 11 million joules. It’s currently used in automobiles, planes, and other vehicles due to its raw power and high energy density. However, a lot of gasoline is currently wasted; the efficiency of many automobiles is lacking as much of the gasoline is wasted generating heat. A typical internal combustion engine only possesses about 26% thermal efficiency and only about 20% mechanical efficiency.
Comparatively, steam turbines generally have around 35-40% efficiency, and are capable of getting around 90% fuel efficiency, meaning that if gasoline was burned to power specially designed steam turbines they could easily be around 3-4 times more efficient in terms of energy production, and potentially up to 4.5 times more efficient, than standard combustion engines. If this energy was stored as electricity, this means that the energy, over the power grid and through cars, could easily be 3 times more efficient when used in vehicles after the energy is generated with multi-million dollar steam turbines rather than few thousand dollar engines. This would mean that we would not only get three times as much energy from gasoline as we do now, but that the cost of gasoline would essentially drop by 1/3 its current amount, given our reduced need for it. If the energy was generated in a more efficient machine before being used in vehicles one could easily reduce the price of locomotion drastically as well as reduce their polluting emissions.
Algae could be used to capture the exhaust from the steam turbines to prevent it from going into the atmosphere, and then use that algae to produce ethanol. As of now the standard 5-10% ethanol gasoline fuel blend currently used in most unleaded standard gasoline seems to possess the equivalent fuel efficiency of gasoline, despite ethanol being around 1/3 weaker than gasoline. This means that burning ethanol in addition to gasoline in the right concentration seems to keep its power level at the same level as straight gasoline, and is basically like adding 10% free fuel to the mixture simply by reusing previously discarded waste products.
It would also make self-reliance on energy a much more feasible task. The United States in 2004 imported nearly 65% of its oil from other countries, and this was considered the peak import year for the 2000 onward period (foreign oil usage is expected to drop to 54% by 2030). If the efficiency of the United States’ use of oil was increased by just 3 times its current amount, all the gasoline used in the United States could come from local sources. This means that a dependency on foreign imported oil, some of this oil that could potentially come from questionable sources, would be eliminated and the United States’ energy supply needed for daily expenses and even potentially economic prowess could be entirely in its own hands.
The price of practically everything could fall (given the current transport system that involves using gasoline), pollution could be virtually eliminated and various Countries’ dependence on foreign oil could be removed, allowing them to prosper without the hands of countries’ whose democratic values may not be the same as theirs.
While we would still be reliant on gasoline, the said process would create a lot less pollution and would provide vastly more energy for no foreseeable increase in cost in regards to fuel consumption, being a good option for all of the United States’ and other affiliated countries’ energy needs.
While Carbon Fiber is expensive, the addition of Thorium or reduced energy costs, at least enough to lower carbon fiber from 15-16 dollars per pound to 5 dollars per pound, being slightly less than 1/5th the density of of steel (1.5 grams per cubic centimeter compared to 7.85), would put carbon fiber unit to unit about as expensive as steel, making it more feasible for production while keeping the same level of safety. This could be possible with improved efficiency of electricity production, and if the electric cars were lighter weight, they could not only travel further (eliminating range anxiety) but the life of the engine and battery could be lengthened. Potential replacements to lithium include Potassium ion and lithium titanate both of which have longer lives than lithium ion and have potential advantages and disadvantages, namely potassium ion being cheap and lithium titanate being able to recharge faster.
Gasoline is an incredibly powerful fuel source, possessing around 21.5 million joules per pound, compared to coal at around 11 million joules. It’s currently used in automobiles, planes, and other vehicles due to its raw power and high energy density. However, a lot of gasoline is currently wasted; the efficiency of many automobiles is lacking as much of the gasoline is wasted generating heat. A typical internal combustion engine only possesses about 26% thermal efficiency and only about 20% mechanical efficiency.
Comparatively, steam turbines generally have around 35-40% efficiency, and are capable of getting around 90% fuel efficiency, meaning that if gasoline was burned to power specially designed steam turbines they could easily be around 3-4 times more efficient in terms of energy production, and potentially up to 4.5 times more efficient, than standard combustion engines. If this energy was stored as electricity, this means that the energy, over the power grid and through cars, could easily be 3 times more efficient when used in vehicles after the energy is generated with multi-million dollar steam turbines rather than few thousand dollar engines. This would mean that we would not only get three times as much energy from gasoline as we do now, but that the cost of gasoline would essentially drop by 1/3 its current amount, given our reduced need for it. If the energy was generated in a more efficient machine before being used in vehicles one could easily reduce the price of locomotion drastically as well as reduce their polluting emissions.
Algae could be used to capture the exhaust from the steam turbines to prevent it from going into the atmosphere, and then use that algae to produce ethanol. As of now the standard 5-10% ethanol gasoline fuel blend currently used in most unleaded standard gasoline seems to possess the equivalent fuel efficiency of gasoline, despite ethanol being around 1/3 weaker than gasoline. This means that burning ethanol in addition to gasoline in the right concentration seems to keep its power level at the same level as straight gasoline, and is basically like adding 10% free fuel to the mixture simply by reusing previously discarded waste products.
It would also make self-reliance on energy a much more feasible task. The United States in 2004 imported nearly 65% of its oil from other countries, and this was considered the peak import year for the 2000 onward period (foreign oil usage is expected to drop to 54% by 2030). If the efficiency of the United States’ use of oil was increased by just 3 times its current amount, all the gasoline used in the United States could come from local sources. This means that a dependency on foreign imported oil, some of this oil that could potentially come from questionable sources, would be eliminated and the United States’ energy supply needed for daily expenses and even potentially economic prowess could be entirely in its own hands.
The price of practically everything could fall (given the current transport system that involves using gasoline), pollution could be virtually eliminated and various Countries’ dependence on foreign oil could be removed, allowing them to prosper without the hands of countries’ whose democratic values may not be the same as theirs.
While we would still be reliant on gasoline, the said process would create a lot less pollution and would provide vastly more energy for no foreseeable increase in cost in regards to fuel consumption, being a good option for all of the United States’ and other affiliated countries’ energy needs.
While Carbon Fiber is expensive, the addition of Thorium or reduced energy costs, at least enough to lower carbon fiber from 15-16 dollars per pound to 5 dollars per pound, being slightly less than 1/5th the density of of steel (1.5 grams per cubic centimeter compared to 7.85), would put carbon fiber unit to unit about as expensive as steel, making it more feasible for production while keeping the same level of safety. This could be possible with improved efficiency of electricity production, and if the electric cars were lighter weight, they could not only travel further (eliminating range anxiety) but the life of the engine and battery could be lengthened. Potential replacements to lithium include Potassium ion and lithium titanate both of which have longer lives than lithium ion and have potential advantages and disadvantages, namely potassium ion being cheap and lithium titanate being able to recharge faster.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)