Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't monopolize for their own gain.
This also for storage. Alloys and synthetics have replaced steel in storage containers. Hydrogen tanker trucks ply our freeways daily with no cavalcade of security/safety vehicles. It's all bunk. So what if efficiency is less? Early gas engines were inefficient, too. It's the pollution that's important.
Four decades ago a four function calculator cost $600. Today they're in a kid's wristwatch you get free in a box of breakfast cereal. This kind of technological advancement could have been applied to hydrogen technology and we'd all be driving hydrogen cars today. But, there's no incentive in exploring it and it has advanced little. You are throwing up the same arguments the naysayers did 30 years ago. This doesn't mean these problems are not solvable, it means no one has done a damn thing in 30 years.
Oil is also free. It is the harvesting of these things that costs money. Wind turbines are still fairly expensive to buy and maintain, and the land is rarely free. The electric company I work for has an 86 KW solar site on a couple million dollars worth of land... go figure.
The storage problems may be solvable, but not yet. At a recent alternative energy fair I saw a 3/4 ton pickup with 150 mile range, courtesy of the three large hydrogen tanks that overfilled the bed.
I canna change the laws of physics. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, and as it stands is one of the least efficient of the front-runners. Methane from hydrates is a more viable alternative to petro fuels, but its time has not come, either.
Wind is free, but steel in a wind tower isn't. Generators isn't free. The photovoltaic cells aren't close to free.
There's actually been a lot of research in wind and solar over the years, billions of dollars worth. Countless physicists and engineers have devoted their lives to research and development. So I don't think it's fair to say they haven't done anything in 30 years.
The price of electricity from wind has fallen alot. I think 30 years ago it would have been 30-40 cents per kwh, instead now its 5, supposedly. Electronics are cheaper due to miniaturization. I don't think the same thing is true for wind machines. They are more efficient not and bigger but technology can only go so far.
There's alot of research in it, if it were easy to make money doing it, it would be here.
Jesus, that must really twist the tails of these macho men who aren't even allowed to start their own ENGINES, let alone switch their own DRL's on!!...God Almighty...the humanity of it all...
Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to be, that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total, is available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace gasoline and certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude oil. Except for the one that is currently being used, more and more throughout the world as a major source of energy with the notable exception of the US, but suggest using more of THAT energy source drives the environuts well........nuts. That clean, safe, low cost, unlimited and yes even renewable energy source is nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce electricity in countries like Japan, China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has been holding down an even greater increase in demand for other less environmentally friendly fuels. ;)
Sorry its a bit late, just catching up after a bit...
Problem is, lithiums are dangerous. When punctured, they have a distressing tendency to, at best burn, at worst explode. Well, if you live somewhere like the sahara, you might be ok, but moisture in the Air + punctured cell n(such as after a crash) = BOOM. thats why. Its well documented in RC aircraft. Oh, also their chargers are MUCH more expensive and complex. and generally have worse charge/discharge curves. Can't go by 'Ah rating' alone (since thats determined by a
Power is the ability to accomplish work from a physics point of view and it is indeed power which is required to overcome wind resistance, move a certain distance and/or increase potential energy (climb a hill).
There is great misunderstanding about the relationship between torque and power. In modern times the distinctions between manual and automatic transmissions are becoming moot in this regard as today's automatic transmissions often have five or six forward gears, which gives them even more flexibility for optimizing the relationship between engine speed (RPMs) and work being done than ever before. I don't think that you actually understand the function of a torque converter either. It is essentially and infinitely variable transmission which goes between the engine and the main transmission and provides for a range of ratios between the two. Modern ones also include an electrically activated lockiing clutch to disable the converter under cruise conditions and thus get rid of the high amount of power loss in the little buggers.
In modern times the differences between "import" and "domestic" motor design points is becomming smaller all the time. Cadillac's Northstar has far more in common with a Lexus V-6 than it does with a traditional
1960s style GM motor. The current GM Ecotec 4 cyclinder motor is very similar to similar size Japanese and European designs. In fact, GM puts a turbo version of it in the Saabs.
Your Japanese/Domestic comparisons are off the mark and meaningless. I will gladly take on any V-6 equipped modern Chevrolet or Ford at the local drag strip or road racing course with my V-6 Honda Accord. GM is only now starting to implement variable valve timing used to flatten the torque curve as Honda has been doing for years.
Just because your dream system hasn't happened is not evidence that the boogie man exists or that he is THE OIL INDUSTRY. Saps like you fell for the fish carburator nonsense as well.
I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right :).
The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one isn't handled yet. Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time employees. In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious movement with strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers and a strong hatred/distrust for Others!
So? It still develops more power than the Freestar and the torque to do it comes on at lower RPMs. Ford would love to declare a higher HP number for the Freestar, no matter what the RPM, but their crappy engine's power output falls off dramatically above 4600RPM as it starts to shake itself apart.
So the Toyota downshifts if necessary. Except that I haven't noticed that mine ever downshifts on the freeway, unless I really want to accelerate. It's not underpowered.
If the Ford's maximum HP and maximum torque are, as you point out, close together, that describes an engine with a narrow power band - one that would require more frequent shifting.
So you say, but you never bring out any facts and figures to support your allegations. Fact is, you're a blowhard.
Don't think the Freestar's engine is junk? Don't take my word for it. Check with Edmunds:
formatting link
"Unrefined powertrains with less horsepower and worse fuel mileage than mostcompetitors..."
well, /we/ haven't handled it yet. all we do is stick used rods into tanks and leave them there. we make no attempt to reprocess, and frankly, all the money we're spending on storage is a /RIDICULOUS/ waste if we have no intention of reprocessing!
others reprocess very successfully; they recover the useful stuff and transform the non-useful stuff into a form that is /much/ safer for long term storage. again, simply storing unprocessed unmaterial is the worst possible thing to do, but we're seemingly too paralysed by mass fear and mass ignorance and gross misinformation to actually do anything intelligent!!!
they're not in their infancy - the energy is just very "un-dense" and that makes it apita to use.
excuse me - what pressures do you think it's transported at? and how does that compare with the pressure necessary to store sufficient to run a car 300 miles at a reasonable volume? do the math.
there's several problems with hydrogen:
it typically takes more enery to produce than you get back out - not really a good idea is you want to quote green credentials as a reason for use.
it's extremely dangerous. that may not bother you, but it bothers me.
it's extremely hard to use. have you ever heard of diffusion? how about hydrogen cracking?
no, hydrogen is great political propaganda, but it ain't no practical solution.
A broken clock is right twice a day - Mike isn't right even that regularly.
And it's hardly a trivial problem. But it does come down to relative risk. As we recognize the risks inherent in burning fossil fuel, the nuclear option looks more attractive even to some envrionmentalists. And some - I'm one - have favored it for many years. The reason it's not more popular than it is: it's going to be brought to you by the same people that ran Enron and similar operations. We should trust them? I'd be much happier if you gave the business over to the US Navy. They have an impressive safety record that hasn't been compromised by greed or politics.
The "Environmental Lobby" hasn't a tenth the cash available to the "Oil/Gas Lobby." The only reason the Enviros have as much support and visibility as they do is that the science is generally on their side. Oily cash can only go so far. Contrary to what most people believe, there's a fair amount of consensus among climatologists and atmospheric scientists that rising levels of CO2 are attributed to man's activities (deforestation and fossil fuel use) and that this will lead to SOME change.
We're gambling for very high stakes. Covering our bets, by slowing the rates of human-induced change would make sense to me. The fossil fuel industries won't give up their short-term profits, so they put up cash to fight the science.
It's a matter of priorities. I certainly don't want people freezing to death to save a trivial amount of oil but our priorities for the last 20 years have been to build bigger cars and houses, not to find ways to reduce, reuse and recycle. That attitude is going to bite us in the ass.
And there's an economic reason to be out in front on environmental issues - the country that builds the next generation of solar cells (or other energy source) will have an economic advantage. We can be that country but it takes investment to do it. US Corporations would rather puff up executive salaries than hire engineers and chemists. A recent post said that India's graduating 350,000 engineers/year to our 70,000. I believe it. And their science is the same as ours, they can make the same advances that we can but they're more likely to do it because they're able to put more people on it. Why is Toyota on its third generation of hybrid? Because it's a short-term money maker? Hardly, they think they can own the hybrid market further down the road. They're going for strategic advantage.
Don't limt yourself to thinking about the energy industry, either. Where was the last big story on advances in cloning? South Korea. By the way, they didn't achieve that by insisting Intelligent Design be taught in high school.
Come to think of it, there's a second economic reason to be out in front on environmental issues - reducing oil imports would reduce our balance of trade problem. We're $66 billion in the hole this month and a projected $700 billion for the year. To put that in perspective, that's like the mortgage on 3 million reaonably-priced houses. Except we're probably going to mortgage another 3 million houses next year and it's trending worse. If we start exporting whatever alternative energy products we develop, that will also help fix the balance of trade problem.
For once I am in agreement with Jim. Reprocessing is not just safe, its FUN!!!! :-) (Saying that, i used to work at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing facility).
There have been some more intruiging systems discussed, including the 'proton transmutation accelerator' which is basicaly bombarding the waste with a proton gun, to try and do what the alchemists couldn't. never got past planning stages, abandoned last year iirc.
If I remmeber correctly, It takes more energy to produce a conventional solar cell, than the cell will produce in its lifetime. Its only reason is for portability and utility (use ambient light, rather than the added weight of a batery)
The fact is you are the blowhard. You supplied the facts yourself but you still don't understand the relative difference between HP and the ideal application of tongue to HP. I'll waste no more time trying to enlighten you on the subject.. Ford could easily develop more HP for that engine by winding it up if they chose to, but the torgue available at the normal driving rage of 2,000 RPMs makes for a better performing engine. If you are satisfied with the power your vehicle has that is your opinion and your business. The fact is those in the industry knows otherwise, Toyotas are generally underpowered vis a v their domestic comparators, whether you happen to agree or not. is immaterial.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.