Will future cars be electric and run on Solar/Lithium Polymer?

[Developer7]

In the 90s I remember the feeling I got before the big Internet Bubble, I received the same feeling before the housing bubble. If I were to predict the next growth area it would be the "Green Energy Movement".

I BELIEVE THAT ELECTRIC CARS WITH SUPERIOR BATTERIES ARE THE FUTURE.

We can see that solar power, wind power and various forms of inertia power seem to be thriving and improving. The problem is that the energy is difficult and expensive to store for later use.

I've noticed that electric cars have a lot of power and that they are more efficient in their energy use. Electric cars are quiet, they can stop through use of negative charge rather than traditional breaks which leave break dust on your wheels and take so long to stop. In addition electric cars don't release harmful gases and they don't need to be as heavy. In addition, you don't need to have all those gas stations which are an inefficient use of time, of land and there is too much distribution ineffiicencies.

Companies like GM have invested heavily into Hydrogen power. I bet they must have oil industry stock holders because this is clearly an attempt to find another energy source that can be distributed through gas stations it seems to me.

When I look at Ethanol it seems it requires an enormous amount of energy to produce and to distribute. It just doesn't seem like the future.

Hybrids are great but they seem to be tied to our conventional thinking. They still need gas to be distributed, they are heavy and still require an inefficient engine.

To me, it seems that electric cars are the future and that they will utilize solar power, you can plug them up at home and with improvements in batteries you'd be able to store enough energy for driving long distances. In addition, power delivered to your home is much less costly per unit and is much more efficient use of energy transferance.

I would like to learn more about litium polymer batteries and other types of batteries. Why are Lithium Polymer batteries expensive? What would be a great battery company to invest in? I'm going to do research in other places as well but I'd love to hear what you think is the future for cars in the next 5 to 20 years.

[1000feet]

Don't be too fast to discount distribution through gas stations just because oil companies use it now - after all, everyone is still trying to make cars that can move on the roads we already have.

[Parthon]

I think electric is the way to go, but we need to think up better technologies before they take off. Petrol cars are a disaster, terribly inefficient, noisy, bad for the environment and causing territory wars for the land in which we pull oil out of. the only question is where to?

Fuel cells are interesting, combining hydrogen from compressed canisters and oxygen from the air to produce electricity and steam. Awesome. Except that fuel cells are almost as inefficient as petrol cars at the moment and we still use oil to make the hydrogen, by striping carbon from the chains. Electrolysis could be used to split hydrogen and oxygen from water, but a tremendous amount of power is required for this. We'd have to look at using nuclear options before this became viable.

Solar Power is good, but again, inefficient and heavy. To power a car we'd need to build them incredibly lightweight, cover the entire car in panels and still stock batteries for night and cloudy days. It will probably be the way to go once we manage to get the transfer from light to electricity way better than what we have. We are heading that way thankfully and many isolated communities now rely 100% on solar power.

Battery cars are pretty good, but suffer from the many problems that batteries have - heavy, low storage, expensive and dangerous chemicals used in them and limited lifespan/rechargablity. As technology advances though we can make better batteries which are longer lasting, lighter and better at storage. In fact Lithium Ion batteries didn't exist 20 years ago, but now they are used in 90% of portable electronics. It will be good to see what we come up with in the next 20 years.

Nuclear Fission is an okay idea, but we'd have to solve the twin problems of waste storage and mining uranium. I think this will be a dead end just due to the fact that even the best solutions for both of these problems are not desirable in the long run.

Nuclear Fusion is almost the panacea of generation. Using multiple types of hydrogen, which are very ubundant, fuse them together to create energy, and the inert gas helium. Cold fusion has been worked on for the last 50 years and everyone has pretty much proved it's not possible. Hot fusion however is getting closer to breaking even, where the energy gained from the reaction is more than energy required to start and maintain it. I'm not sure what will happen when we finally can generate lots of fairly cheap power, but it will be interesting when it does happen.

Wind Farms are a good idea in theory, but they need huge areas of land with lots of wind, plus a high amount of maintenance and upkeep. Engineering breakthroughs could reduce the space and manhours required, but may be a long time in coming.

Lastly: Fossil Fuels were great in the 1900s, magnificent technology a hundred years ago, but the amount we use today is causing massive problems. Greenhouse gasses, acidic rains, stock depletion, oil spills and vast mining operations make this the least favourable option.

That's my take and knowledge of current possible electricity/car technology. If I had to say where it's going to head, probably electric motor/battery based cars with electric fueling stations in the local garage. Range of about 200 miles in the batteries would also encourage current gas stations to start supplying outlets, or in some cases battery swaps.

I'd definately buy an electric car if they had them here.

[Brutha]

You shouldn't forget that there is only a limited amount of lithium on earth.

At the moment it isn't clear what will be the best system to store energy in ten to twenty years.
It could be some clever lithium based battery.
It could be a battery from a newly discovered chemical compound.
It could be a more efficent way to use hydrogen.

And it could also be some clever biotech way. Biotech has the advantage that you aren't dependend on any resource be it iron, lithium or indium (for solar cells), because the things that biological organism need to to grow are plentiful on earth. Biotech is sustainable over long time.
Maybe Creep Venter succeeds in building some bacteria that is extremly good at producing ethanol and ethanol becomes cheap again.
Maybe we can also build a bacteria that is a powerful battery.
If biotech solves the problem better than the battery industry the battery companies could all go bust.

Some guy or girl in a garage could find a better solution to store energy.

Range of about 200 miles in the batteries would also encourage current gas stations to start supplying outlets, or in some cases battery swaps.

They want to start battery swaping in Israel (in Israel you can't drive more than 200 miles anyway because you would have to leave it to to so).

[silicon toad2000]

They just forecast fuel to be 1.80 a litre here in oz, which if I worked it out correctly is about 6.80 a us gallon. I don't know how that compares with everywhere else.
I was reading one of our auto manufacturers websites the other day and they were forecasting a major growth in fuel cell technology.
I'm not too sure if the push to alternative fuels is to save motorists money on the cost of fuel or to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels fro environmental reasons.
Anyone know what the split is for fuel usage between everyday motorists and transport (airplanes, trucks, trains).

[Still Growing]

I just read that if you charge a typical electric car at your home it costs equivalent to $0.70 per gallon. Not bad at all but with solar and battery improvements this could improve.

Most electric cars also have heavy engines in them as well (hybrid). This extra weight may be the reason typical electric cars only can go 40 miles before recharging or using the engine.

Brutha, good point about the limited lithium. Do you know of any companies that have some lock on lithium?

[escapee]

Oh what about the air compressed car ?

Compressed-air car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Compressed air car is a car that uses a motor powered by compressed air. This can also be combined (as in a hybrid electric vehicle) with gasoline/diesel/ethanol or electric plant and regenerative braking.

Zero Pollution Motors - Air Car

Air car on Video
YouTube - The Air Car

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by escapee

Oh what about the air compressed car ?

Compressed-air car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Zero Pollution Motors - Air Car

Air car on Video
YouTube - The Air Car

Awesome! I want one!

[Brutha]

Brutha, good point about the limited lithium. Do you know of any companies that have some lock on lithium?

No, but Indium and Germanium, which you need in small quanties for example in solar cells (and our present solar cell technology really needs either of those metals) have had huge price increases in the last years.

From wikipedia about indium

In 2002, the price was US$94 per kilogram. The recent changes in demand and supply have resulted in high and fluctuating prices of indium, which from 2005 to 2007 ranged from US$700/kg to US$1,000/kg.[/quote]
Back to lithium:
Chile - Mining says that Chile has 58% of the world known lithium reserves, that could have some geopolitical implication in the next decades.
I don't know whether the state own those reserves or some company.

Oh what about the air compressed car ?

Compressed-air car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, that could be another technology to store energy for cars.

When one talk about future car techonolgy you should also keep in mind that KI gets better and better.
If you have self driving cars, that could reduce car ownership significantly because the shared car can move without a person in it.

It would be a world where moving per taxi is cheaper than moving with a car that you own.
And there would be enough taxis that you can always get one in a short timespan.
If all person would move with those taxi sharing the taxi might also significantly reduce the energy that is needed per mile per person.

Computer controlled could also drive with only halve a meter between them which would greatly reduce wind resistance.

See DARPA Grand Challenge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for the technology in that area at the moment.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by escapee

Oh what about the air compressed car ?

Compressed-air car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Zero Pollution Motors - Air Car

Air car on Video
YouTube - The Air Car

Escapee.
Yeah I was just about to mentions these little gems. Glad you did.

Consider the idea. .........Ummmm.....let's see. Running on AIR (minus costs to compress air) !
Hell yeah ! Sign me up.


Also, a huge factor to consider is these little guys CLEAN UP POLLUTION and reduce modern diseases associated with inhaling. 24 hours a day, exhaust from fossil fuels, at the same time.

The intake system is a high end Carbon filter needed to run the motor. The exhaust expels air, MINUS the highly dangerous/toxic particulates associated with the exhaust from Oil based engines.

Oil companies cannot touch this technology, cause he's already set in motion contracts thru Multiple start up factories across the world.

Once this starts moving, look for the chemical and oil industries to launch a massive Media program against it. How the hell they're gonna do that.....should be fun watching them make complete idiots out of themselves.


Also, depending on who's in the Presidency, and various Senate seats, whether they will be "allowed" to operate within the U.S.
(You know, can't allow these cars to operate. They'll "eat" up all the air, don't you know !)

He's signed a contract with a huge Indian Car manufacture (that just bought Landrover and Jaguar) to start manufacture on these cars back about a year ago...but it seems now they are draggin their heels. I wonder what's up there?

[Brutha]

Also, a huge factor to consider is these little guys CLEAN UP POLLUTION and reduce modern diseases associated with inhaling. 24 hours a day, exhaust from fossil fuels, at the same time.

They don't clean air up that much.
They filter the air a bit but by in large compresing air is just one way to store energy just like lithium batteries or hydrogen.

Once this starts moving, look for the chemical and oil industries to launch a massive Media program against it.

Why should they?
It's not any more dangerous to them then lithium batteries.
Do you have any data on how storing energy in compressed air compares against storing it in lithium batteries?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Brutha

They don't clean air up that much.
They filter the air a bit but by in large compresing air is just one way to store energy just like lithium batteries or hydrogen.

I'd say it's more then a bit. I think we're arguing semantics here.
Run heavy polluted air thru a carbon filter, it reduces said pollution.
Then increase number of these vehicles in a city, equals more reduction in pollution.
And I'm not talking about 100 or so. More in the thousands.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Why should they?
It's not any more dangerous to them then lithium batteries.
Do you have any data on how storing energy in compressed air compares against storing it in lithium batteries?

Cost.
Lithium technology is expensive. Going to a gas station and filling up with compressed air is cheaper.

[infinitethoughts]

That said, I don't see anything wrong with having BOTH technologies.

Anything to cripple Oil Co's screwed up worldview, that fossil fuel technology does not harm the atmosphere, and conversely the air we are forced to breathe.

[Joeschmoe]

Originally Posted by escapee

Oh what about the air compressed car ?

Compressed-air car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Zero Pollution Motors - Air Car

Air car on Video
YouTube - The Air Car

Air compressing is not very efficient. It's essentially a mechanical energy battery. So you have energy loss in compressing the air.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

Air compressing is not very efficient.

Compared to what?

I'm sure it is not the most efficient way to store energy... but it's also not quite at the other end of the spectrum, is it?

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

Air compressing is not very efficient. It's essentially a mechanical energy battery. So you have energy loss in compressing the air.

Like the present technology--internal combustion engine?

Which, by the way is exactly how the Air engine works.

Explosion drives the pistons...
Compressed air drives the pistons....

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

Air compressing is not very efficient. It's essentially a mechanical energy battery. So you have energy loss in compressing the air.

Also lithium batteries technology is more efficient from a pure technical standpoint, but doesn't help clean up the mess our "friends", the oil co's have created.

[Brutha]

A nice article about peak lithium: Forget peak oil. Are we facing peak lithium? - AutoblogGreen
Given that the air car probably doesn't need specific metals, it has advantages.

Also lithium batteries technology is more efficient from a pure technical standpoint, but doesn't help clean up the mess our "friends", the oil co's have created.

To really evaluate the technology you would need both numbers about the energy effiency of those air cars compared to the energy effiency of an electric car.
It would also be nice to have number about how much air a car like this would filter.
I'm by nature sceptical about claims that a given technology is THE thing, if the manufactor doesn't provide clear numbers.
Engineering not about just telling a good story.

Anything to cripple Oil Co's screwed up worldview, that fossil fuel technology does not harm the atmosphere, and conversely the air we are forced to breathe.

The air we breath is a different problem than the climate change problem.
CO2 probably won't get effectivly filtered out be that car because the car would need to store the CO2 somehow.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Brutha

A nice article about peak lithium: Forget peak oil. Are we facing peak lithium? - AutoblogGreen

Thanks I'll check it out.

Originally Posted by Brutha

To really evaluate the technology you would need both numbers about the energy effiency of those air cars compared to the energy effiency of an electric car.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The air we breath is a different problem than the climate change problem.
CO2 probably won't get effectivly filtered out be that car because the car would need to store the CO2 somehow.

Well my viewpoint is....how can all these poisonous gases we are releasing from the 1 billion + vehicles and Industry NOT affect the climate ??

With the current additional destruction of the Rain forests, this puts a heavy burden on the present systems in nature to deal with all the excess CO2.

There was a forward thinking company that wanted to spur Plankton growth (plankton has the highest efficiency in dealing with CO2) thru seeding parts of the ocean where Plankton is dying with Iron particles, which stimulates the growth of Plankton, but Environmentalists and some Scientists have forced the company to pull the plug on it. They said, one has to consider the effects of adding too much Iron to parts of the ocean.
LiveScience.com Blogs » Blog Archive » Planktos Pulls the Plug on Ocean Fertilization

Regarding the filter. Once it is clogged, a new one is inserted. Driving around cities with Extreme pollution, the filter would have to be changed more often.

[Brutha]

Well my viewpoint is....how can all these poisonous gases we are releasing from the 1 billion + vehicles and Industry NOT affect the climate ??

Ozone for example is toxic for humans and something that we don't want on the ground.
On the other hand we could need a bit more of it in the atmosphere.

CO2 on the other hand isn't that problematic on the ground but something that we don't want to have in our atmosphere.

Certainly there are a bunch of good reasons for filtering air and removing toxic particles from it, but there not always the same as climate change.

There was a forward thinking company that wanted to spur Plankton growth (plankton has the highest efficiency in dealing with CO2) thru seeding parts of the ocean where Plankton is dying with Iron particles, which stimulates the growth of Plankton, but Environmentalists and some Scientists have forced the company to pull the plug on it.

I'm not for geo-gambling either.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Brutha

CO2 on the other hand isn't that problematic on the ground but something that we don't want to have in our atmosphere.

Huh?

"on the ground"?
How do you have health threatening Vehicle emissions not be problematic "on the ground"?

Maybe you meant natural CO2 emissions ?
I'm talking about CO2 in the context of poisonous emissions from a vehicle engines.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Certainly there are a bunch of good reasons for filtering air and removing toxic particles from it, but there not always the same as climate change.

The earth has always had warming and cooling periods.
But ya gotta admit, the sheer amounts of pollution do play a factor in the delicate balance of the natural eco-system, no?

Put a tiny gas engine, say 1 cc, in a sealed garage. Any plants in there (and humans) wont be around for long.

Now it does depend on how many plants you have in there. If the garage were jam packed with plants, would be a different story.

But I don't think the "braniacs" hacking away at the Rain forest is helping the eco-system handle the extra emissions we put out.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I'm not for geo-gambling either.

I agree.
The easiest and safest "geo-gambling" is getting rid of the problem in the first place. Pollution.
Which means switching over to non-Oil based locomotion.

[escapee]

Global warming and myths and facts
Global Warming Myths and Facts - Global Warming - Environmental Defense Fund

John Ritch: The Necessity of Nuclear Power

The fact of this planetary crisis can no longer be a matter of psychological or political denial. For our best Earth-system scientists now warn, with ever increasing certainty, that greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that are – quite literally – apocalyptic: increasingly radical temperature changes, a worldwide upsurge in violent weather events, widespread drought, flooding, wildfires, famine, species extinction, rising sea levels, mass migration and epidemic disease that will leave no country untouched.

I believe our hope lies on nuclear energy to act as the main source of clean energy to power our green cars ( Eg : Compressed air station for Air car ), green electric appliances and etc.

I see hope in nuclear but see destruction and death in crude oil. Would Erin Pavlina verify my "prediction" with her psychic reading or crystal ball ?

[infinitethoughts]

Right, Escapee.

It's a fact that the masses get Socially Engineered by Corrupt Vested interests.

It's so ludicrous, at one point there was a commercial by Competitive Enterprise Institute. | CEI (which is partly funded by Exxon), that got pulled quickly, that ended with the line ...."Carbon Dioxide, They call it pollution, we call it life."



YouTube - They call it pollution, we call it "Life"

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by escapee

I believe our hope lies on nuclear energy to act as the main source of clean

Can we please favor a solution that is less, uhm, risky?
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) has my vote!

(as for the death of crude oil... tomorrow would be good, but I'm willing to accept next week )

[Brutha]

Maybe you meant natural CO2 emissions ?
I'm talking about CO2 in the context of poisonous emissions from a vehicle engines.

It's the same CO2.

Put a tiny gas engine, say 1 cc, in a sealed garage. Any plants in there (and humans) wont be around for long.

Even if you filter out all CO2 from the engine the plant will still die.
Huge amounts of CO2 are certainly not beneficial but there not that big a deal as the amount of CO.

Can we please favor a solution that is less, uhm, risky?

Wikipedia
The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.

Pollution Causes 40 Percent Of Deaths Worldwide, Study Finds Air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year, according to a new Cornell study.

You have to put the risk in perspective. A lot of the air pollution comes from coal power plants.
Sure Chernobyl was bad but the risk of losing 5000 people in one bad event that happens because of terrible mismanagement is less severe than killing millions each year with burning fossil fuels.
If you kill millons each year that doesn't make a good news story, because it is just a statistic.
When Chernobyl blows up on the other hand it made a lot of news and got people freightend.
The longnow talk about the issue is really good.

The easiest and safest "geo-gambling" is getting rid of the problem in the first place. Pollution.
Which means switching over to non-Oil based locomotion.

The great thing about cutting pollution is that it isn't gambling. If we cut pollution we don't mess something up even when your prediction about global warming are a bit of.
To be exact non-fossil fuel based locomotion.
If you power your air car or electric car with power from a coal plant it still is a problem.

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) has my vote!

I think the right think is to not vote for a single technology.
By investing in multiple things, we are far more likely to get something good.
And when we want to go of oil and coal fast we should do every non-fossil fuel thing to generate energy.

[JSB]

We need to get off oil eventually, but the technology simply isn't there yet.

In the short term, the US should focus manufacturing on synthfuels from coal, so it won't have to import foreign oil, and will thus have less incentive to remain "involved" in the affairs of the Middle East. This would also reduce oil prices worldwide and take some of the financial burden off of nations without large oil/coal reserves.

Whether or not one believes in severe, man-made global warming, we can manufacture so many useful materials from hydrocarbons that it seems stupid and wasteful to be burning them as fuel!

For a longer term strategy, we should be working on highly efficient electric cars, either hybrids run on algae biodiesel or fully electric vehicles with more efficient batteries.

A combination of 4th generation nuclear power, solar thermal plants, photovoltaics, and wind turbines should be able to produce all the power we need.

Of course, the time to start this push was after the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, but apparently one global crisis wasn't enough to get our attention. Maybe $150 per barrel oil, an unpopular war, and talk of environmental catastrophe will be enough this time.

Converting everything (especially transportation) will take a few decades, so it's time to get started!

[Still Growing]

I realize that with Electric cars you will still burn energy for electricity however I think that the key is a triple combination... (Electric, Solar and Battery)

Currently the solar and batteries are not efficient enough to power a car for long distances however as these breakthroughs develop they will be. I think that the first breakthrough needs to happen with batteries.

Once batteries can affordably (with less weight) power a light vehicle for 400 miles on a full charge then we'll be able to make the vehicles lighter. Only by making the vehicles completely dependent from combustion power can we make them light enough to reach full efficency.

Then as solar power progresses we'll be able to charge while the car is sitting and even while its driving. It will take many years before cars need no external energy source however I believe that for $40K we'll eventually be able to produce a car that needs no external power.

So what's it mean for all parties concerned?
OIL COMPANIES: Oil companies will still sell oil but to manufacturing and power plants. They will still be profitable.

CAR COMPANIES: Will sell lighter cars that use less material for more money. So they'll maintain their profits.

CONSUMERS: Will not pay as much at the pump but will pay a little more in home energy and via inflation.

In the end, companies will find a way to still profit, the environment will be cleaner and less net energy will be used... But don't think that you as a consumer will come out ahead financially.

I am planning to invest into Lithium or a battery company or in some company that takes the above and starts to excel.

To me it makes the most sense.

[monkeyking]

I am 100% behind the electric car as our future, however, i dont see the current methods of energy storage being used.

Hydrogen fuel cells have looked like a good technology for years, but I still dont think its practical for vehicles. Its just not possible to store the required amount of hydrogen in a car. the fuel tank would have to withstand immense pressure, and we currently arent anywhere near the technology required to do this. When you add this to the fact that hydrogen is very expensive (in energy terms) to make, it doesnt look so reliable.

the new tech batteries, especially lithium based are looking very good in terms of energy density and size/weight. Lithium is definately a good power source for cars, but it does have some short comings, and the cost at the moment is prohibitive.

as for solar cells.... i would love to see us all in solar cell cars, with solar powered houses, etc. cell efficiency is only around 25% now, so theres definately much much more to come from them. however, i still dont think you'll ever be able to run a car purely on solar power. especially not with the uk weather

my money is on capacitors to be used for energy storage. They can charge in seconds, are very resistant to damage, delivery high currents and can be recharged an unlimited number of times. only problem is they have very low power density compared to normal batteries. the new ultra capacitors are much better, but still not enough. I am however, very hopefull about the technology

In my head, i see electric cars, with capacitors for energy storage. at home, you would have solar panels on your garage which would store the days solar energy, then use it to charge your car at night. fueling stations would be no more then electric sockets where you could plug in. these could be powered form the electricty grid, and be suplemented by solar panels.

having said all that, i could be totally wrong, and the future might be in biological batteries?

[Brutha]

To sum up a few alternatives for storing energy:

Air compression
Lithium batteries
lead-acid batteries
nickel-metal hydride batteries
Craig Venters synthetic organism that succeeds and is a fluid fuel
a nano material that is increadible good at storing energy
capacitors
Hydrogen
2th genertion biofuels (algees)
a real biological battery

You don't know how the technologies will develop and it's difficult to bet on the right one.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think the right think is to not vote for a single technology.

Fine. There's wind turbines, geo thermal energy, big dams appear to be a proven tech too (albeit one with high impact on the environment). Even regular voltaic solar cells are on the move.

Anything other than fossil fuels is better than nuclear in my opinion. I don't think a technology that has the potential to make entire countries uninhabitable and has an as-of-yet unsolved waste problem is the way forward.
No, sticking nuclear waste in a vault deep under ground is not a solution! It's a workaround, at best.

Sure Chernobyl was bad but the risk of losing 5000 people in one bad event

That's still 5000 people more than are ever going to die because of an accident with a CSP plant. Yes, nuclear is less risky than fossil fuels on the whole - but that doesn't make it a good solution!