(Page 2 of 2)
Nick Zielinski, the chief engineer at GM responsible for advanced vehicle concepts, says that GM released the fuel-cell version in China because hydrogen has a better chance of taking hold there. In China, energy infrastructure is still being developed, and gasoline and electricity may not be available everywhere. "They could develop a hydrogen infrastructure much sooner than we do here. And a fuel-cell vehicle may make more sense than a plug-in-to-grid option because hydrogen may be much more accessible," Zielinski says. He adds that "hydrogen, when it's generated in a renewable way, produces no emissions. And that's where I think we'd like to get to."
With the Volt, the power source can vary according to the proposed market. In the original version revealed in January, likely to attract customers in the United States, the first 40 miles of driving are powered by energy stored in a battery pack that can be recharged by plugging it in. (See "GM's New Electric Vehicle.") That's enough range for a typical daily commute. For longer trips, a gas- or ethanol-powered generator recharges the battery, allowing for an additional 600 miles of range. In Europe, diesel generators can be used, rather than gasoline generators or fuel cells.
Other major automakers are also developing plug-in fuel-cell and battery-powered vehicles. In January, Ford unveiled a vehicle that runs off stored power in the battery for the first 25 miles before a fuel cell starts recharging the battery, which can add an additional 200 miles of range. As with GM's Volt, the fuel cell could be replaced by a gas or diesel generator.
Both the fuel-cell and generator versions of the Volt will face challenges, but it's likely that the fossil-fuel versions will reduce carbon-dioxide emissions more than the fuel-cell versions. The Volt equipped with a gas-powered generator has a large battery pack that will allow most drivers to skip the gas station altogether for daily commuting. And because the generator is very efficient, even for trips longer than 40 miles it may use less gas than ordinary cars. Of course, total carbon emissions will depend on the source of the electricity for charging the battery, but the relatively high efficiency of power plants compared with conventional vehicles will likely lead to lower carbon-dioxide emissions overall.
The main challenge with this vehicle is that a big enough lithium-ion battery pack, made to withstand the abuse of automotive applications, hasn't yet been created. Zelinski says that no more major breakthroughs in battery-cell technology are needed. All that's left is to integrate hundreds of these cells to make a big battery pack. That's going to be challenging, but, he says, "it's something that can be handled in a straightforward, solid-engineering way."
Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
I wish people would just get over the fears they cling to so dearly regarding nuclear power. If an adequate contingent of nuclear generation facilities were constructed, then a hydrogen economy would certainly be viable, in my opoinion.
Also, technologies avaiable today make nuclear power almost risk free. If I could refer readers to a previous TechReview article:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/12727/
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
Zippo, In our free market economy usually only the most cost effective solutions are viable. From what I've read it seems that even with high temperature thermal generation of hydrogen from nuclear, by the time you've transported the hydrogen and converted it to electricity in a car fuel cell you're left with less electricity than if you had used the nuclear plant to generate electricity in the first place and stored it using batteries in the car.
I simply don't see a day, even with many extra nuclear plants, that throwing away energy converting to hydrogen and back to electricity would make sense.
Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
Yeah, your probably right. I have seen a model that simultaneously transports hydrogen and uses it to cool a superconducting layer in its pipeline. In this way, hydrogen is efficiently transported and electricity can be transmitted much farther. Again, it all comes back to efficiency, as you said, but it's an interesting concept.
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
Even electric tranmission is pretty effecient using current technology. There are many High Voltage DC (HVDC) lines that run over long distances using up to 500,000V. I remember seeing some grand plans for huge solar projects in North Africa with an undersea HVDC to Europe. I believe it mentioned transmission losses of 5-7%.
Wonder if superconducting would have any economic benefit.
Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
I also wonder what would happen if electrical generation failed and people who rely on battery-powered vehicles couldn't juice up, such as in a black-out? Would they have to keep a gasoline generator on hand, or could they simply stock-pile surplus energy on the grid in the form of hydrogen?
I think that would be an excellant use for hydrogen generation. Sure, surplus energy can be stored in batteries or diverted, but batteries degrade over time and need replacing. If you simply divert the extra energy, in some extreme cases, you can have a cascade failure like the one we saw a little while back. That was New England, right? Hydrogen, on the other hand, if stored correctly, can be held on tap for a much longer time. I would imagine that some form of battery or capacitor would need to be used in the process, when the amount of current on the grid gets so high that electrolysis can't keep up.
What do you think?
Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
Use your nuclear for a continuous, reliable energy supply, and use your "flaky" renewable sources - wind and solar - to make hydrogen for storage and linear drawdown. Gas pumps don't run in a blackout, either. What about home electrolysis using a wind generator? How fast does the guy commuting to work need to make hydrogen, anyway? The compressor and control system that collects it to storage would run off the grid.
Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
The proponents of 'safe' nuclear energy have still not adequately addressed the issue of nuclear waste. There are existing storage facilities which are insufficient and actually leaking into waterways such as the Columbia River.
Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
The Integral Fast Reactor solved many issues with Nuclear generation and waste. This reactor runs on the waste products of existing light water reactors. These plants can be built near the current stockpiles of waste and will reduce the existing waste while pulling additional energy! Argonne National Labs had a working prototype when John Kerry successfully lobbied to can the program.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html
Re: Nuclear support for a hydrogen economy.
If we all really truly "dont want it in my backyard". I don't see why, if it is such a problem, we don't just load up all the waste in old ICBM's and shoot them into the sun. The cost of fuel and soon to be junked missles can't be more than the cost of guarding it for thousands of years while it's half-life slowly runs its course
Not the fuel cells per se, but the whole concept of a flexible plug in hybrid with electric drive.
China is building a lot of nuclear with plans to go nuclear-->Hydrogen. They should display the fuel cell version there. Europe is Diesel, they should have a diesel generator version when they show there. The U.S. is still gas/ethanol, Brazil is Ethanol.
Make the car flexible enough to accept all sources and economical enough to compete and you've got a sure winner.
Flexibility through electricity is the way through all the new technology maze.
Guest (dlathrop52)
while it is, today, not realistic to derive hydrogen from fossil fuels, the longer term potential of hydrogen in the transportation fuel cycle makes this prototype, and others like it, worthy of pursuit.
How safe is it to travel around with 10,000 psi of HAZMAT in your trunk?
A lot safer than traveling around with 20 gallons of gasoline HAZMAT in your trunk. Witness all the people who burn to death each year from gasoline fires following car accidents. By contrast, the hydrogen release from a rupture in an automotive hydrogen tank or supply line would dissipate so fast that no explosion or fire is likely. Lockheed investigated the safety of hydrogen as an airplane fuel for the U-2 and for the L-1011 and found no undue safety hazard. The Challenger astronauts were right next to the hydrogen/oxygen fuel tanks explosion (massive amount of liquid hydrogen) but were not killed by that explosion. Photographs of the Hindenburg crash show that it is the burning skin of the dirigible that endangered the passengers with fire. It is not clear that the hydrogen in the Hindenburg even exploded, but if it did, the explosion did not significantly damage the dirigible, a fragile airship.
The MSDS lists Hydrogen as having a combustable range of 4-75% of total air concentration. Thats a pretty huge range for a combustable. The idea that all of the fuel in the canisters could leak out without any sparks igniting it seems possible. Possible seems to travel over to almost impossible if the leak is taking place during the middle of a vehicle collision.
Nuclear energy could certainly crank out enough hydrogen for everyone. The problems right now with hydrogen are storage and perfection of the fuel cells.
The article mentioned how hybrids that draw off the grid pump less carbon into the atmosphere than internal combustion cars. This is true. Ethanol versions of a plug in hybrid would release far less carbon into the air than the gasoline versions...but even the gas versions would be less polluting.
AND if you're not one for environmentalism...think of releasing ourselves from dependency on foreign oil.
I so wish they'd market this car! I want two.
S
Re: The viability of hydrogen.
Can you show me a research or study showing that we have enough uranium and we can build enough nuclear power plants economicaly viable to replace *all* fossils in transportation with hydrogen and for how much time. Is nuclear power the final solution?
Because that is how I read "Nuclear energy could certainly crank out enough hydrogen for everyone."
While (insert favorite alternative energy source here) energy may be able to crank out lots of hydrogen, shouldn't we be evaluating the inefficiencies of the hydrogen fuel cell cycle up front to determine whether it's a good idea?
Seems to me that if you supply electricity to battery powered cars instead of to electrolizers you come out way ahead on energy and cost.
I applaud GM for trying to think out side the box and seeing the necessity of moving beyond oil. The Fuel Cell Volt is a great example of that. I think that it will ultimately be beneficial for GM. The paradigm shift has started taking place and it is just a matter of time (10-20 years) before oil is significantly replaced by hydrogen and other environmentally friendly sources of energy
Typical non engineering view.
Reminds me of the MIT report ~99-21 that computers where not improving productivity.
The opinions expressed by MIT have not been supported by engineering data.
Fuel Cells where first used on the Gemini vehicle.
MIT objected and backed the high temperature technologies that have delayed progress for many years.
GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us that the carbon dioxide produced by combustion is changing the composition of the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide will warm the world and alter the climate. Climate changes will cause severe problems. People from Al Gore to Tom Freedmen, author of “The Earth is Flat”, have called for the development of a new energy infrastructure to counter carbon dioxide build up. They endorse a development program on the scale of the Apollo program. Apollo was a Maximum Effective Effort program. To be ready to respond we need to take a sober and probing look at the magnitude and nature of the challenges.
The non-human energy used in the United States is energetically equal to about 90 servants working for each of us every day. Support from these energy servants is the source of our high standard of living. The energy for the servants comes from the combustion of fossil fuels that produce carbon dioxide. We must stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as soon as we are able. This will ameliorate climate change and preserve fossil fuel chemicals for higher value uses in commodities such as plastics, rubber, fibers, drugs and lubricants.
Some deny the danger from carbon dioxide and say “take no action; the magic of the open market will solve all problems”. They treat the world as a business in liquidation. They expect to sell all the earth’s resources at what ever price today’s market can bear. They believe we can transition from the current burning of oil/natural gas/coal to a future system based on tar sands, shale oil and liquid fuels from coal. They ignore the danger from climate change and they ignore the higher value of hydrocarbon as chemical feed stocks. These beliefs show little or no concern for the future of life on the earth and are immensely dangerous to the long term survival of humanity.
Another group suggested for energy we should continue to burn the carbon compounds and bury the carbon dioxide underground for future generations to manage. They promote a puerile plan called sequesterization. Simply put, they recommend we continue to burn fossil fuels and pump carbon dioxide into the ground in the hope that it will never be released. Unfortunately, they have no way to ensure future safety. Those that promote this concept need to look anew at Lake Nyos in Cameroon. In 1984 the lake released sequestered carbon dioxide and suffocated 1700 people, all their livestock, wild life and destroyed most of the vegetation. As this is being written high pressure underground gas is causing a mud volcano that is destroying thousand of hectares of Indonesia. Sequesterization is a very dangerous strategy. It does not preserve the fossil fuel chemicals for higher value use. It appears corrupt to pass the problem to a future generation. Sequesterization of carbon dioxide is only slightly less dangerous than denying that it causes global warming.
Others promote growing crops for energy. Humanity is able to produce only slight more food than is required to support our 6.5 billion members. For the United States farm crops would be required to provide many times the current yield. The mismatch between the fossil fuel energy needed to support our 90 servants and the energy available from farm crops is so extreme that there is no hope of growing adequate crops to feed humanity and supply our energy needs.
Some think that fluorescent light bulbs, recycling, and hybrid cars are the answer. While useful, these things will not end the production of carbon dioxide. These folks believe that extensive harvesting of renewable energy is the answer. Wind, solar, and the like are clearly a vast improvement over burning fossil fuels. Unfortunately, renewables are very unreliable. Wind is only available part of the time. In the northern climes clouds prevent effective collection of solar energy. Dams teach us that large scale harvesting of renewable energy can cause environmental harm. We need to harvest renewable energy when practical, but a reliable back up energy source (a base load source) is necessary. The question is: what combination of energy sources can form the new infrastructure?
Fission nuclear energy, based on uranium, is unsatisfactory. Thus far there is no acceptable solution for the transportation and storage of high level radioactive waste produced by fission. In extensive use of current once through reactor technology, the uranium (a relatively rare element) supply would be depleted in 50 to 100 years. Uranium depletion leads to a scenario in which we become dependent on fission and accept the use of breeder reactors. Breeder reactors magnify all the shortcomings of burner reactors and in addition add the threat of large quantities of bomb grade uranium and plutonium circulating as articles of commerce. This will delight the terrorists of the world.
I think the answer is: humanity should empower all possible means of improving efficiency; any energy saved represents a reduction in the production of carbon dioxide. Then humanity must support the harvesting of all the renewable sources practical. As soon as we are able we must develop nuclear fusion (not uranium fission) as the base load energy supply. Sir David King, the chief science advisor for the United Kingdom, recommends that fusion is the answer to future energy needs (King, David, ‘Fast Forward to Fusion’ New Scientist, Issue 2442, 10 April 2004). Unfortunately, within the United States the Department Of Energy (dedicated to fission), with encouragement from the fossil fuel industry, have been apathetic regarding the development of fusion.
In 1992, a fusion reactor produced energy for a short time; a scheme to build a utility reactor was proposed; it is called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). In July 2005, the journal NATURE reported that after 13 years of procrastination and haggling the multi-nation ITER team reached an agreement. ITER will be constructed at Cadarache, France; this is good news! In other reports, Raymond L. Orbach of the United States Department Of Energy told the United States press that the ITER might lead to a power plant in the year 2040; this is bad news. The approved design envisions an ITER reactor one-half the size desired by the technical team; this is also bad news. The small size is reputed to save money, but it magnifies the potential for failure.
In rebuttal to Mr. Orbach’s schedule, see the 1976 report, FUSION POWER BY MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT, ERDA-76/110/1, UC-20, Page 8. (ERDA is the United States Energy Research and Development Administration, a precursor to the current DOE). This 1976 ERDA report states that building a pilot fusion reactor would take 10 to 13 years with a Maximum Effective Effort (using 1976 technology and computers).
Renewables and fusion can provide the carbon dioxide free energy we need to support our 90 servants. Renewables produce heat or electricity and fusion produces heat and from heat more electricity; how do we get the energy to our servants? Dr. Tesla’s electricity has a number of very serious shortcomings. The electric supply system is terribly fragile. Every year throughout the world weather knocks out electric transmission. The outages result in disruption of society and even some deaths when critical equipment stops working. Electricity starts many fires that destroy property. People are killed by the fires and direct electrocution. Electricity is very difficult to store. Dribs and drabs can be stored in batteries but most must be used as it is made. Because it cannot be stored in quantity it has limited use in transportation. Only trains running of fixed right-of-ways can be powered by electricity. We must have a storable fuel that can be easily made from renewable supplied or fusion supplied energy sources. Hydrogen is that fuel.
Electricity produced by any energy source can decompose water in an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen to serve as fuel and the valuable by-product, oxygen. Hydrogen can be transmitted to all energy consumers through pipelines in the same manner that natural gas is delivered. Pipeline delivery is far more reliable than electric wires. The inherent volume of the pipelines smooths the sporadic output of the renewable energy sources. Smoothing of the output of the renewable sources makes their use far more practical. Hydrogen has been demonstrated as a fuel for automobiles, planes, and all other forms of transportation. All operations that require electricity will generate it locally with hydrogen-air fuel cells with hydrogen supplied from the reliable pipeline. When hydrogen is used as a fuel the oxygen it consumes is exactly equal to the oxygen produced when the water was decomposed in the electrolyzer. With this energy infrastructure all materials in the energy cycle are completely recycled. The oxygen by-product can be used to ameliorate other challenges such as solid waste disposal and purifying water.
I appeal to the scientific community to provide strong support ITER and to lobby for a second development activity for other types of thermonuclear reactors, possibly the boron plus hydrogen reaction. The boron plus hydrogen reaction is nearly radiation free. With these two projects competing useful results will be obtained in the shortest possible time. With a Maximum Effective Effort similar to the Apollo program, it appears reasonable to project the solution to the global warming problem, to provide energy independence for most nations and aid it providing clean water, all by 2050.
Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
I agree, totally. Yes, we need alternative energy sources, but, aside from hydro, none are reliable for the vast amounts of base load power we need.
So, we must pursue all of the power souyrces you mentioned.
I would differ in one regard: France obtains 80% of its electrical power from fission, and has faced few problems. We must add fission reactors as well, until fusion becomes available.
Finally, we need a tax (or cap and trade) law to raise the cost of emitting carbon dioxide.
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
I'd have to disagree with the statement than none other than hydro can serve as baseload.
Concentrating solar can store heat and be used to provide 24hr baseload, or 18hr or 16 or whatever best matches requirements. Geothermal can be baseload. Wave power is very predictable if not constant.
Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
I found myself a little ITER sceptic. According to their site:
http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_1.htm
First commersial ITER-derived power plant is not awaited before 2050. I think we all know how vulnarable to delays all research projects are especcialy the biggest ones. So I am little sceptic about it. Keeping in mind the moderate "Oil Peak" prognosis that around 2015-2020 oil production will stop being able to increase with the speed the deman increases. This will put additiona preasure on electricity production because I believe by 2015 there will be many EVs (pure or not) on the roads.
So personaly I think ITER will be too late on the scene.
Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
I don't think a fuel cell car is the only possible answer. There are problems with the fuel cell, problems with producing Hydrogen, and problems of delivering the Hydrogen to the fuel cell.
If, and it's a big if I'll admit, we can advance battery technology, then batteries are the only answer because they're hands down better than any possible future that expends energy to free Hydrogen and then reintroduces it for further inefficiencies.
I strongly support the research because I think it's better safe than sorry, but I'd put more research into batteries, and possibly ways to recharge those batteries on the roads over Fuel cells.
Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
So is battery technology advancing faster than fuel cell technology? Have there there been more battery inventions and breakthroughs?
Re: GM's fuel cell car is the only answer
Stating that a partcular technology is 'the only answer' is a dangerously limited view. Combinations of emerging technologies will certainly be the future. I support all-electric vehicles charged by clean generated electricity. Studies show that the limited range of EV's is adequate for some 80% of daily driving demands. Battery technology is advancing rapidly, as are wind and solar technologies. GM's killing of the EV1 was a huge step backwards.
Guest (Professor)
Series Hybrid Engine Design
History
In 1971 I started to Design the Hybrid drive system for automobiles, which will be Powered by an Electric Motor, and an onboard generator powered by the engine, with electrical energy storage in capacitors and battery.
This will give us a Cleaner Environment and we will use less fuel for transportation.
The power generating engine for Hybrid vehicles would use gasoline and alcohol as fuel. The car would not need to be plugged in to charge it up, the capacitors and battery would be charged when you drive it, the same as vehicles used today keep the battery charged during operation.
You would be able to get your fuel from any gas station as before with one noticeable difference. It would be possible to get over 100 MPG and the environment would be much cleaner since you would use less fuel to travel the same distances and your operating costs would be less.
I am familiar with all aspects of company organization from concept to final marketing and public relations. I have experience as CEO and Chairman of the Board, have hired, trained, supervised and organized product and work schedules. I have experience doing Documented R & D at
(British Columbia Research ) at the university of British Columbia in Vancouver, B.C. Canada.
I am used to taking responsibility and making important decisions.
Time To Take Action
It is time to move forward in the design and function of the Hybrid automobile, we must leave the old technology behind.
A car engine that is over sized in displacement is wasting natural resources, polluting the air that we breathe and costing a fortune to drive.
High torque engines are old fashioned, out dated, and costly to operate.
We need to enter the 21st Century with a modern car, we should not be using the technology that was invented over one hundred years ago and applying it the same way.
New technology is available in the 21st Century and it must be used if we are to continue to be the world leaders of innovation.
The technology has changed and if we don’t change with it, we will be left behind.
A modern automobile whether it is a car, truck, bus, or any other means of transportation does not require any more extra power in operation than enough to keep the capacitors fully charged and ready for an increased power demand such as in starting from a stop, hill climbing and passing on highways.
A simple physics fact is that it takes a lot less power to keep an object moving once it is moving.
The initial force of getting it to move from a stop is when the most power is needed, once it is moving it is easy to keep it moving, with much less energy.
This Hybrid Engine is a conventional Internal combustion engine with some changes.
There wouldn’t be a flywheel. In its place is a motor, generator that serves two purposes, first as the starter to get the engine started, this will draw power from the capacitors and battery when the engine starts its speed will increase and the starter motor now becomes a generator and it will power up the capacitors and charge the battery.
This Hybrid engine would be so clean in operation that the air pump and the catalytic converter would not be needed to clean up the unburned hydrocarbons.
These things would go the way of carburetors and lower the manufacturing cost.
The driver can expect to get very good mileage and the performance that is required and expected.
The engine is very much like today’s conventional engines, except that the performance will be better, the vehicles will be quieter and the infrastructure is already there to supply the fuels. Automotive grade alcohol fuel costs less than gasoline to produce and can be grown anywhere in the world. ( Since this was first written Ethanol has started to become available in limited quantities in many parts of the world.) “E85” in USA. Note; there is less energy in alcohol than there is in gasoline so you won’t go as far on a gallon of E85 Ethanol fuel as you would on gasoline.
The Modern Automobile Engine
The Electronic Hybrid engine is for cars trucks, busses and other forms of transportation.
Internal Combustion engine 4 cylinders, liquid cooled, in line arrangement, four stroke with a displacement not more than 1500 cc. For cars , in other vehicles it would be larger , 120 to 144v DC Generator / Starter Motor, liquid cooled, series wound, permanent magnet type.
Generator, main power supply, 120 to 144 v DC permanent magnet, series type, supplies power to the Capacitors, battery, and DC Series drive motor liquid cooled, unregulated amperes.
Drive Motor, 120 to 144 v DC, series type, permanent magnet type, liquid cooled, and air over, for both front and rear wheel driven vehicles.
Capacitors, 120 to 144 Volts several hundred amperes, located in the rear of the car, either under the back seat or under the trunk, would last for the life of the car or 1,000,000 km.
Hydrogen as a Power Source Hype
The Hydrogen Fuel Cell looks promising until you take a realistic look at it and only until then. For example, if fuel cells that ran on hydrogen were manufactured tomorrow at the same cost as an internal combustion engine, there wouldn’t be anyplace to get fuel for them. Hydrogen does not naturally occur and has to be made usually by electrolysis which takes a great deal of electrical power.
It takes more energy to make Hydrogen than you can realize from using it as a power source.
The electrical power system in place in North America is not capable of handling any more than three extra high loads per circuit before there are serious brownouts, and it is estimated that it would cost billions of US dollars to upgrade the system if only a handful of people decided to go with electric vehicles or make their own Hydrogen at home.
The power to generate hydrogen also must come from the same source, there is only so much power to go around. Fuel cells are not going to be mass produced within most of our lifetimes, the infrastructures have to be built first, the ordinances have to be passed for parking and fueling safely and with a very dangerous working pressure of 350 bar , (That term translates into 5075 PSI at the fueling hose.) Only a highly skilled trained person would be licensed to fill a vehicle’s tank with Hydrogen, you could never have a self service Hydrogen filling station and it takes hours to fill a tank with Hydrogen just to go a short distance.
It is time to take a serious look at various technologies to see what can be done, not some impractical expensive fuel cell powered by dangerous to handle hydrogen.
The Modern Hybrid engine has been invented and it is very clean to operate, it does not pollute the environment. It uses very little fuel. It will operate on gasoline and E85 fuel.
Automobile grade alcohol can be grown and processed for less cost than gasoline, and it can be grown year after year.
A big car engine would have a 1500 cc maximum displacement, anything over that would be wasting resources. Larger vehicles like trucks and busses would need more power and everything in their system would be larger, engines , motor, generator capacitors, and battery.
They could be made to any size and could have four, six, or eight cylinder engines connected to the generator.
I have chosen 120 to 144 V DC for cars for several reasons, one of which is that 120 to 144 V DC will give excellent acceleration to cars and it costs less to make the capacitors with the required amperes with lower voltage. They also would be lighter and require less fuel to carry them around.
A Hybrid engine producing 96 to 120V DC is best for city vehicles as they have been called, good for city driving but not intended for long freeway trips.
This is pretty much the way gasoline powered cars are made today, we know that some little cars are fine, in the city, but we wouldn’t want to take a trip in one.
100 MPG Hybrid Engine
The Series Hybrid can be used to provide power for any sized car, from the little compact sized car to the big SUV’s and any car, bus, or truck.
This engine is designed to be run on gasoline and alcohol, but Propane, and Natural gas could also be used.
It can run on most fuels and is designed to be the cleanest engine no matter which fuel is used.
The Hybrid Engine was designed to reduce the exhaust emissions that are produced by the motor vehicles and to improve the quality of people’s lives and future generations with reduced emissions from now on.
Gasoline is readily available everywhere, and alcohol could easily be introduced to the infrastructure. It is a good fuel because of the ease of handling and it delivers a good distance traveled between fuel ups.
Propane is a clean fuel, although natural-gas is cleaner, and hydrogen if it ever becomes available, and the cost to produce it can be lowered, and a safe way to handle it could be found, it could be the cleanest energy known.
There is a limited availability of natural-gas, and an inexpensive way has to be developed to produce and a safe way to handle hydrogen first if this is ever to become a source of power in the future but they both have a very short driving range.
The Hybrid Engine is an excellent source of heat for heating the car's interior and for supplying heat to the defroster in winter. Electric vehicles don’t have this built in benefit.
These Series Hybrid vehicles would not have a transmission of any kind either.
( This also is a substantial cost reducing factor in the manufacturing of a series Hybrid drive car.)
There wouldn’t be an expensive inverter in a series Hybrid drive either since it is not needed when using DC power, there wouldn’t be any switching back and fourth between DC and AC .( This also lowers the manufacturing costs substantially and makes it easier for more consumers to buy a Hybrid car).
It can easily be converted to a “Plug-in Hybrid” as well if the owner wanted to drive only on electricity. (After market, do it yourself project people would love this. It could be a factory option as well with different electric driving ranges available from 10 to 40 miles at different costs for different ranges and more batteries.)
In normal operation the engine generates the power, which keeps the capacitors and battery charged and powers the car.
The electric motor draws power from the capacitors when accelerating from a stop and during continuous operation such as passing and going up hills, and it will draw power from the DC Series generator when the car is maintaining a constant cruising speed on the highway.
The capacitors are also fully charged up when slowing down by regenerative breaking since capacitors are charged in seconds, while only a small amount of power is recovered during braking with current parallel Hybrid vehicles as they store recovered power in their battery.
Capacitors and batteries both store electrical energy but under very different conditions.
It takes a long time to put energy into a battery, while it is instant storage into capacitors.
The result is a car that can get over 100 miles per gallon and they can be produced using current knowledge. The Series Hybrid powered cars could be produced for less than the current Automobiles of today and it would produce less emissions than the current state of the art engines when traveling over the same distances at the same speeds. This is the modern technology that is needed for transportation.
There is a $10,000,000.00 X Prize for the first person or company that can do this and I want to share the prize with a person or company. I am looking for the financial backing and it would take me about a year to put it together in a new Malibu sized production car. I have given you enough information so that you realize that I know how to do this , but not enough information for you to do it without my help.
I have left out some valuable information that is important to this project that is needed to make it happen.
Keith Tomilson Eng.
I became an Engineer by Profession In July 1971. I have been Involved in Research and Development of Machinery and Equipment for over Thirty Years.
The fields that I Specialize in are; Mechanics, Electronics, Thermal Dynamics, Energy Transmission, and Energy Conservation.
Currently I am teaching in a world famous university in China and I will only reply to e mails that are from people who are interested in providing funding to this project and would like to share the X Prize with me. Include your phone number in the first e mail. I wont give out any of the technical information on the phone either. This technical information full disclosure will happen only in face to face meetings, after the money is in place and the papers are signed. I will assume the position of responsibility for further development for production to completion.
Contact:
keithtomilson@netscape.net
A series hybrid will NOT be cost effective from a fuel economy standpoint untill and unless the mogen system is light, CHEAP and as efficient as a turbodiesel. Hanging a 300lb shrunken Detroit "car" engine driven mogen in an auto WITH the electric motors and batteries is not efficient.
If someone comes up with a 100lb or so, 40% efficient, 25kW mogen package, then the very large and capital intensive metal casting-machining-stamping infrastructure Detroit needs to stay in business is no longer necessary. For a few hundred million dollars someone could set up a tubular steel frame and composite skin manufacturing/assembly operation and bolt together outsourced parts. Small battery for a road cruiser and large battery for the "in city hybrid" version. You could even leave out the mogen when you buy the car and rent one for the vacation tour each year. Or get a tiny battery pack just large enough to accept 5 minutes of mogen charging to allow the mogen to operate at steady state and top efficiency. The mogen just cycles on and off as you drive. This scenario is probably what worries the "no longer so big 3". Parallel hybrids still require a substantial IC engine with good efficiency (and low emissions) at VARIABLE load AND a big transmission-drive train. Detroit like!
The market will sort it out if the USGov keeps its tentacles out. Tax subsidized fuel ethanol isn't a good start.
The absolute best way to delay a technology, (say plug-in hybrid technology - with or without a fuel cell) is for some huge company to announce they are going to do it - then venture capital for companies like Tesla Motors dries up - then you forget about it, ..mission accomplished. game over.
The other often used method is to buy a critical patent and bury it untill it runs out.
Hence... oil companies and the electric car...
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Taganan
3 Comments
Alternative power
Use a small steam engine to generate electricity instead of an IC engine. It would be truly multi-fueled and could use kerosene, furnace fuel oil, ethanol, vegetable oil, propane, methane, LNG, syngas, liquified coal, hydrogen or even gasoline. It would also be cleaner than an IC engine, more durable due to fewer moving parts. Thermoelectric power from the exhaust and used steam would also gain efficiency.
E-mail beesidemeusa@yahoo.co.uk for more details.
Reply
Taganan
3 Comments
Re: Alternative power
W. Dennis McClam -your e-mail site at listnlook is not a valid address per Yahoo and Google lists it, but says it doesn't exist. Please try again with a valid address.
Reply