If you have the facility to swap the batteries then you do not own the batteries, the organisation where you swap them owns them. Any problems with the batteries and they fix. Yes they would need to store a day's worth of batteries which would be recharging, using a huge amount of electricity. What would be better is to get rid of such places altogether. You recharge at nighttime when demand for electricity is low. The only times that would not work is if you forget to plug in the car (let us make that impossible) or if you are travelling long distances. The later should be the exception. Maybe use a hire car for those.
I know they could replace bad batteries. My point is that it would be like if you traded out full tanks of gas, but they gave you a tank of gas with a hole in it. You think you've got a certain number of miles that you can go, but you don't. This could leave you stranded. Yes, keeping many batteries topped off waiting for someone to come in would be wasteful. Combine that with the overhead of the building you'd need to store them, the labor to trade them out, and the cost to buy all those batteries to begin with (and, as you point out, replace them when necessary), and the cost for a battery trade-out vs a simple charge get worse and worse. Agreed, although I don't know how you would make it "impossible" to forget to plug in your car.
electric motors are more efficient and much easier to maintain... though I am sure mechanics are worried if they would still have jobs, I am sure they will not have anything to worry about in their lifetimes
I will contend that biofuels are simply too extensive to produce, and use valuable water. The 10% ethanol now mandated in gasoline is highly subsidized.
This... This is why people who lack understanding of engineering principles do not make good engineers.
I doubt it would even be noticed. Current fuels already produce water vapor and CO2. With the efficiency of electric over IC, the water vapor produced is probably about the same, give or take a little. Just no CO2 produced. Gasoline is almost entirely carbon and hydrogen. With modern technology it is almost completely turned to H2O and CO2. If the four molecules are equally mixed to form gasoline, these three will produce 26 water molecules and 29 carbon dioxide molecules. I haven't done the efficiency math using energy densities in a long time and not going to look things up again. Maybe someone else will. It will take more hydrogen than gasoline for the same energy, but the energy need is far less. Even if the H2O output is double, isn't it worth the possible, little extra water vapor, to switch to hydrogen fuel to reduce carbon dioxide? I normally argue that current ideas aren't ready and thing we will still use gasoline and diesel for a long time. I do hope I'm wrong. - - - Updated - - - Ever look at how inefficient making diesel and gasoline are?
Would 93 seconds do? [video=youtube;HlaQuKk9bFg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlaQuKk9bFg[/video] http://www.treehugger.com/cars/1st-...roll-out-soon-model-s-prices-drop-europe.html
Toyota will begin selling a hydrogen powered car next year in japan, 300mile/482km range, refills in minutes....honda is also reported to do the same...http://www.thecarconnection.com/new...-cell-vehicles-by-2015-but-they-wont-be-cheap
Apples and oranges. A barrel of crude oil can be refined to diesel and gasoline, but there are other components used for plastics, lubricants, and asphalt to name a few. A barrel of oil is a resource we collect. Granted it's not a renewable resource, but hydrogen isn't even a resource. If you want to get hydrogen from water you have to get the energy from somewhere else (which may or may not be renewable). They hydrogen is just an energy storage mechanism and we have to put the energy in there, like a battery. Of course there are other means of obtaining hydrogen, the most popular being from natural gas, but then we're back to fossil fuels and CO2 generation.
A friend from texas in a senior postion with Conocophillips admited to me the dumbest thing we do is burn oil for fuel, once it's burnt its gone for hundreds of millions of years...it has far more value in recyclable products than fuel but we're burning it for short term profit... it's defeatist to discount solar and wind, that is where the future lies...
You know though, if I has $60k to spend on a car, I'd have a hard time choosing between a sweet Camaro and a Tesla S.
The problem with trying to "bang" hydrogen through a conventional engine is the fact that the cylinders heat up and the hydrogen explodes too early. Real bugger of a timing problem....rotary or turbine may work.
Thank YOU I am just more comfortable combusting hydrogen to get from here to there than going electrical. NightSwimmer. My father was an engineer. I am a "biologist". Engineers don't like biology do they. My best buddy is likewise, even with a father who is an engineer. Engineers are good for all that theory, but biologist are more the product justifies the inefficient means. I want to see two similar cars that vary only by their propulsion systems. One bangs / combusts Hydrogen and one ensnares innocent electrons to do their electrical bidding. I want to witness it physically played out. Biology rules ! Moi, BSc Biology r > g No
You can almost afford two of those. Cash to spare? Go for the Corvette http://www.torquenews.com/106/c8-chevrolet-corvette-development-already-underway-maybe-hybrid
Uh...I'm not an electrical engineer but I don't think so. Batteries routinely have several plates in them and each one is actually a separate battery, so batteries can be built up to any size you desire. I think there are limitations on this, yes, but I know that some types of big batteries are actually made up of lots of smaller ones, no sockets necessary, they just touch.
Why? The direct conversion using a fuel cell is far more efficient. The fuel cell achieves the same chemistry of burning, but at lower temperatures. Because we are not putting energy into a mechanical process, we don't have these mechanical losses. Because we are using a low temperature exothermic chemical reaction rather than a high temperature exothermic chemical reaction, and putting all energy not wasted into electricity, it is marvelously efficient compared to combustion. Both a fuel cell and combustion are exothermic chemical reactions.
Yes, there are limitations. Currently, cars use thousands of the same type cells used in laptops. Remember reports of laptop fires? The individual cells have heat distribution issues if you upscale them. You can make one twice the dimensions in height and diameter and get 8 times the power, but the surface area for cooling is only 4 times. Plus, the radius from center to outside means it takes longer yet for heat to dissipate. Physics can be a real pain for desired plans.
As much as I like corvettes, I want a car that's also practical. I need to be able to seat at least two others.
Not in the context of electrolysis it isnt. Better to crack ot from NG or do high temp electrolysis at source and burn in a hydrogen combustion engine than to use a low temp electrolysis in the car itself.
The think with power transfer, you have less loss at low current high voltage relative to low voltage high current. Each cell is around 3.7 or 3.8 volts depending on state of charge, charging, or discharging, etc. The Tesla S uses 7104 cells for the 85 KWH version. This is done by putting 16 modules in series. Each module is 6 cells in series by 74 in parallel. The charging voltage is somewhere around 400 volts maximum which is about as much as practical safety limits and safety margins before such limits will allow for. The faster more efficient charge would be to operate at much higher voltage with more cells in series and less in parallel, but OSHA and other safety regulations take a large change at 600 volts. More voltage would require less current and a faster charge rate, along with less power loss for the same gauge wiring. Thousands of connections is crazy. If anything, if you look at this 16 x 6 x 74 arrangement, maybe you could up it to something like 20 x 6 x 60 instead charge at around 500 volts, and finish 20% faster. 16 x 6 series, 96 cells, about 370 to 400 volt charging. 20 x 6 series, 120 cells, about 456 to 500 volts charging.
To add, all cars are probably using an approximate 375 volt battery pack. I will assume that charging stations have been standardized to around 400 volts from what I lave gleaned for information. To use more or less voltage for an individual make or model would complicate the electronics for charging, and add another layer of efficiency loss.
