|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dogshed
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| dogshed wrote: |
I'm happy to see that so many people are dispelling the
myth that cars using storage methods like hydrogen,
batteries, or compressed air do not use an energy source.
I'm sure there are some people that still think
a hydrogen car means you can burn tap water.
However, while there is no free lunch there are
some advantages.
Regenerative braking can recover energy that
would usually be lost to the brakes.
As demonstrated by hybrid cars if you use
a fossil fuel the motor can be smaller and
more efficient.
Having polutants generated at a central facility
like a power plant means that the weight of polution
control equipment is not a factor in the vehicle
and is easier to monitor by the government
or environmental groups.
The power source can be changed without changing
everyone's car. |
Regenerative braking is good in theory however it is still stored energy and requires battery disposal.
Maybe regenrate the braking to compressed air tanks?!
cbc |
Compressed air is stored energy so that would be a way of
storing energy that did not require batteries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vicissitude wrote: |
These cars aren't even scheduled to be sold in North America. They will, however, be sold in a least twelve other countries. Meanwhile North Americans will continue to use 99.9% gas powered autos and fill up at stations that leak oil into the ground and contaminate our water supplies. I can't tell you how many gas stations near my home that had to be shut down on account of them leaking 'too much' oil and it being too costly to repair this problem. |
Like I say, if they catch on in India and increase the demand on the power grid, let's hope India meets that demand with power plants that don't burn fossil fuels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vicissitude
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Vicissitude wrote: |
These cars aren't even scheduled to be sold in North America. They will, however, be sold in a least twelve other countries. Meanwhile North Americans will continue to use 99.9% gas powered autos and fill up at stations that leak oil into the ground and contaminate our water supplies. I can't tell you how many gas stations near my home that had to be shut down on account of them leaking 'too much' oil and it being too costly to repair this problem. |
Like I say, if they catch on in India and increase the demand on the power grid, let's hope India meets that demand with power plants that don't burn fossil fuels. |
Do you know for certain IF air-compression (to fuel and power one of these cars I've mentioned) would put any MORE demand on the power plants than what is already happening with gas powered vechicles of the same standard? It still takes power at the pump to fill-up a gas tank and keep a station in operation.
Anyway, India is working on the power plant issue:
http://powermin.gov.in/indian_electricity_scenario/power_for_all_target.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vicissitude wrote: |
| Do you know for certain IF air-compression (to fuel and power one of these cars I've mentioned) would put any MORE demand on the power plants than what is already happening with gas powered vechicles of the same standard? It still takes power at the pump to fill-up a gas tank and keep a station in operation. |
Are you saying that the electricity needed to put gas into a car's tank + a portion of the energy needed to keep the gas station in operation (lighting, phone, space heater) is roughly equal to the electricity needed to compress the air for an air car's tank?
If so, then show me the stats.
One the face of it, it seems absurd. The amount of energy needed to move a car 300 miles is equivalent regardless of what fuel you use. That energy needed (ie needed to be stored in the car) is surely not equivalent to the energy needed to simply move 30 liters of gasoline 100 feet. Regarding the electricity needed to power a station: Given, say, the $2 a gallon you pay, only 8% of that price is for distribution and marketing. And then only a % of that 8% goes to the gas station owner/operator, one can safely say the electricity overhead of the station itself is negligible on a per tank basis.
As well, your URL says nothing about what means (nuclear? coal?) the Indian government is using to meet growing demand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vicissitude
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Vicissitude wrote: |
| Do you know for certain IF air-compression (to fuel and power one of these cars I've mentioned) would put any MORE demand on the power plants than what is already happening with gas powered vechicles of the same standard? It still takes power at the pump to fill-up a gas tank and keep a station in operation. |
Are you saying that the electricity needed to put gas into a car's tank + a portion of the energy needed to keep the gas station in operation (lighting, phone, space heater) is roughly equal to the electricity needed to compress the air for an air car's tank?
If so, then show me the stats.
[I was asking if you had the stats. because it sounds like you are making the assumption that it takes MORE. You also have to factor in the energy it takes to get the crude oil from ground zero to the tank. Also, you aren't taking into account all of the leakage and spills that get into our water supplies]
One the face of it, it seems absurd. [really? how?] The amount of energy needed to move a car 300 miles is equivalent regardless of what fuel you use. [huh? help me out here. I don't get it. I think it depends on what type of fuel you are using. I know people who converted their engines to take waste oil from fast food restaurants. This is the same oil that would otherwise be recycled and as you know the recycling process puts more pressure on the power grid.] That energy needed (ie needed to be stored in the car) is surely not equivalent to the energy needed to simply move 30 liters of gasoline 100 feet. Regarding the electricity needed to power a station: Given, say, the $2 a gallon you pay, only 8% of that price is for distribution and marketing. And then only a % of that 8% goes to the gas station owner/operator, one can safely say the electricity overhead of the station itself is negligible on a per tank basis. [I think I'm using too much energy trying to figure out what the heck you are trying to debate and it's putting more pressure on the power plants to keep my laptop running.]
As well, your URL says nothing about what means (nuclear? coal?) the Indian government is using to meet growing demand. |
If you want to find out more about India's power sources, you can always do a search. The information is there on the internet. It's irrelevant and rather off-topic so I didn't post it. Why? because if a person is concerned, he/she can always use the method I already discussed several posts back and completely avoid power plants altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogshed
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Vicissitude wrote: |
These cars aren't even scheduled to be sold in North America. They will, however, be sold in a least twelve other countries. Meanwhile North Americans will continue to use 99.9% gas powered autos and fill up at stations that leak oil into the ground and contaminate our water supplies. I can't tell you how many gas stations near my home that had to be shut down on account of them leaking 'too much' oil and it being too costly to repair this problem. |
Like I say, if they catch on in India and increase the demand on the power grid, let's hope India meets that demand with power plants that don't burn fossil fuels. |
Even if they do burn fossil fuel by having the fossil fuel burned at a central location it is easier to control and monitor the pollutants. It's very difficult to make sure every car owner keeps all the pollution control gizmos in working order. The car can be lighter weight because there are no polution gizmos and the motor can be smaller and made of lighter materials.
There would be an advantage even if you burned gasoline in a motor to run the compressor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
