Future Transportation?

OK, I have seen a lot of posts lately in the Cafe on the future of transportation technologies. I didn't want to hijack any of the other threads because they seem to be specfic to a particular technology. Hence the more broad title for this thread. Please feel free to add just about anything here.

--

So what is the future of transportation? We have quite a few choices: automotive, mass transit and telepresence. In automotive; we have Hydrogen, gasoline, CNG, LP, Diehsal (BD), hybrid, battery, fuel cell, flywheel, microwave, etc.

And to pare this all down: transporters are not likely in the near future, mass transit is not cost effective in all but the most dense locals and telepresence (telecommuting) offers the most bang for the buck, but it doesn't elimenate the need to transport things. So that leaves the automobile which we all love and hate.

You ask most people, "what is the future of the automobile" and they usually say, "hydrogen". But then you ask them, "in what form?" and then it gets murky.

Some people think that we will be pumping liquid hydrogen from their local filling station in not to distant future. While others think we will be driving cars with reformers that converts gasoline into hydrogen as it is used. I am of the latter persuasion. I can go into the detail on that if anyone wants to know (warning! soapbox alert!). /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Although electrics (100% battery), hybrids, diesals, CNG, etc will have their day. They won't be mainstream like good ol' gasoline. Not that I like gasoline, but it works.

I find that the subject of future transportation is mostly fantasy and hype. There are systems that look green, smell green but end up wasting more energy and polluting the enviroment than other systems that don't look as glamorous.

I too want to be free of the tyranny of oil. There are things we can do to reduce our usage, find other sources and keep those who provide it under check.

Someday, we will have batteries (or related storage means) that can make the mass market electrics a reality. I can say though, that will not be happening anytime soon.

Alternative fuels are also generally a crock. I say that generally as each has it unique hype. Many assume that our $280 billion gasoline infrastructure can easily be replaced to handle corrosive, pressurized or other weird fuels. Alternative fuels will gain in popularity, more stations will sell it, but in my opinion, it will not be mass market. I could be wrong on this one guys, and you are welcome to proove me wrong (please, gasoline is evil stuff).

Automobiles are quite a tyranny. But this is not an easy problem to fix.

Your thoughts?

USCAR (working examples of gasoline/fuel cell systems)

Peter Gransee

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif Duck, everybody...... incoming!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

Bob

One other item for thought: There are several possible alternative technologies for wheeled vehicles, but what about powering commercial airliners? They are obviously not going to fly on batteries (I think), so what is the ultimate technology there? Maybe bio-diesel jet fuel? Just wondering.

Here's a fun question. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

What kind of vehicle would I sell if our company made advanced vehicles (and money was no limit)?

SuperBike
----------
20kw long life fuel cell
multi-fuel reformer
pressurized fuel tank (steel lined for corrosion resistance)
1kw/hr Gyro for acceleration, chassis stabilization, traction control
Liquid metal exoframe
HA finished exterior (scratch resistance)
front/rear Rim drive linear motor/gen/magnetic bearings/active suspension
front/rear chassis Screw lifts for height adj
Enclosed lexan canopy (a la F-16), roll bar, half doors, two reclining seats, climate control, hud, drive by wire stick and throttle (F-16 again), auto cruise, collision avoidance, full point harness for drive and passenger, sat reciever, full LED inside and out
auto stand (replaces "kick stand", gryo keeps bike from tipping over at stoplights, stand is used when bike is parked)
Skid pad on each flank (for manuevers outside of gyro limits)
Flat kevlar tires (airless, not beveled for turning like conventional tires, gyro system/wheel pivots maintains tire 90 degrees to ground plane for more traction)
Folding ground effect winglets for freeway ground effect (wheels retract, winglets take affect at 60mph, cruise height is 1 inch, winglets are 12sq feet total area and fold along side chasis when not in use, 2.5 foot electric pusher prop with ground interlock)
Interior, exterior airbags (exteriors are radar deployed)

Designed to simulate flying a fighter jet at very low altitudes. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif



Peter

[ QUOTE ]
Lurker said:
One other item for thought: There are several possible alternative technologies for wheeled vehicles, but what about powering commercial airliners? They are obviously not going to fly on batteries (I think), so what is the ultimate technology there? Maybe bio-diesel jet fuel? Just wondering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Turbine engines are, to some extent, multi-fuel engines - I do know that gasoline is typically approved for (limited duration) use in aircraft turbines, as well as different grades of kerosene. I'd imagine that BioDiesel/diesel would be no problem, with a bit of fuel control tuning, or even slight mechanical modification. Just a guess, tho.

The cold weather jelling problem using BioDiesel would certainly have to be resolved, considering the frigid operating temps of aircraft at altitude. No biggie.

Also, there are currently a number of diesel-powered piston aircraft in development and flying - I believe Renault may even have a certified diesel available for the Aerospatiale small aircraft line (Trinidad - Tobago??). I'll look into that...

Bob

Peter - the one resounding question I have is; how can you consider a GASOLINE reformer fuell cell a viable "future" method of vehicle propulsion, when GASOLINE itself will be non-existant in the not-too-distant "future"? (most people in-the-know figure we'll begin experiencing petrol shortages in about 50-70 years - what then?? Oxen to farm and distribute the food for 10 billion people?) To me, this is the single most important reason for the development of alternate and renewable energy.

Bob

[ QUOTE ]
Gransee said:
While others think we will be driving cars with reformers that converts gasoline into hydrogen as it is used. I am of the latter persuasion. I can go into the detail on that if anyone wants to know (warning! soapbox alert!). /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll bite. Are you persuaded that this is what will happen by default, or is this what you think *should* happen? I agree that the momentum is in favor of continuing to power our vehicles through the use of fossil fuels for as long as feasible. The thought of an electric vehicle powered by gasoline doesn't even register on any "reasonable solution" scale.

[ QUOTE ]

Someday, we will have batteries (or related storage means) that can make the mass market electrics a reality. I can say though, that will not be happening anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]
For a commuter, they're here. 250 miles not enough for mass market?

Thanks for starting the thread, Peter.

I usually don't get into these discussions, but during college working on my engineering degree I did dabble in biodiesel and other things. The talk here is all about hybrids and electrics so I don't discuss the fact that I collect Corvettes (4) or that I have a boat that has TWO 400hp Crusader engines. I buy LOTS of gas, and I don't mind. My best friend works for Amoco in Tulsa involved with forecasting economic data. They are not planning on going out of business very soon. Their estimates reach a long way into to the future. His quote to me was something along the lines that there was more oil out there nobody had touched than had ever been pumped (this is not me saying this, this is a quote). The thing that will slow down the development of new stuff is cheap oil, so it will most likely be gradual. Back in the 70's everybody were making 15-20 predictions about the fall of the auto.

My vote, having worked on them, is pulse motors on the highways. You self power (electric, gas, whatever) and when you get onto a major road pulse engines underneath power your car. When you get on you are billed a certain amount for how long you are on the road and then you go off the meter when you go back on your own power.

Whatta you think of that Darrell?

[ QUOTE ]
bigcozy said:
I buy LOTS of gas, and I don't mind.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is the part that unsettles me the most, I think. Just because there may be LOADS of undiscovered oil out there, it doesn't mean that I'd like to pump it all to the surface and burn it. There are two leading reasons that I enjoy driving fossil-fuel-free. One is that we aren't dependent on a non-renewable fuel, and we are not dependent on the whims of governments who produce most of it. The other reason is the damage to the environment from burning it, vaporizing it and leaking it onto the ground.
[ QUOTE ]

My vote, having worked on them, is pulse motors on the highways. You self power (electric, gas, whatever) and when you get onto a major road pulse engines underneath power your car. When you get on you are billed a certain amount for how long you are on the road and then you go off the meter when you go back on your own power.

Whatta you think of that Darrell?

[/ QUOTE ]
I like it. My 4th grade thesis )) was on something simliar. I still have that report. I envisioned a highway of slot-car tracks. You driver you battery EV from your garage to the highway, and drop your stinger into the track. The track then guides you, recharges your batteries and powers the car while on the road (probably even keeps you from hitting the car in front if you - so you just choose how fast you'd like to go from the various lane choices, and go on full auto-pilot). When it is time to exit, you pull up your stinger and again drive on battery power to your destination. Sound familiar? This process would cover about 90% of American miles driven. Infrastructure might be a bit pricey - but nothing compared to distributing H2.

Darrell, you probably knew more in the fourth grade than I did in 99 working on this project! You wouldn't need slots, it could work right through most surfaces. As you pointed out, a radar type device could be used to sense the distances between cars and could retard their speed when appropriate. Pulse motors can be used to slow things as well as speed them up.

Didn't mean to unsettle you. I don't have much of an alternative fuel wise for my boat. I like fast cars, even though I don't drive fast (never had a ticket). I don't share the view that fossil fuels are so close to extinction or that IC engines are on the way out. I do believe that when the Venezualen strike is over and the incursion into the Middle East is stabilized the drop in oil will set back a lot of alt sources. Not saying that is right or wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
bigcozy said:
You wouldn't need slots, it could work right through most surfaces.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, well... as you can imagine, I had to go with what I knew... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif This report was on "what will you be doing in the year 2000." Seemed like a long way off at the time.
[ QUOTE ]

Didn't mean to unsettle you. I don't have much of an alternative fuel wise for my boat. I like fast cars, even though I don't drive fast (never had a ticket).

[/ QUOTE ]
No there aren't good alt choices for many things unfotunately. That part I understand. I do own a standard ICE vehicle, afterall. The only unsettling part was the implication that burning fossil fuels in vast amounts was "OK" because we have a seemingly limitless supply. If you think that battery vehicles and "fast cars" don't go hand-in-hand, you really need to get your hands on an EV1. Or take a ride in the Tzero. Check the movie on the race with the Tzero and a 'Vette.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't share the view that fossil fuels are so close to extinction or that IC engines are on the way out.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't share that view either. I just know that fossil fuels are finite eventually, and I don't want to be tied to the middle east and mandatory crappy air and water while we wait for the resource to run dry.

[ QUOTE ]
the drop in oil will set back a lot of alt sources. Not saying that is right or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of good or bad. I'll say it: Bad.

Thanks for the good discussion, Mr. Cozy. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I didn't mean to suggest that I was advocating wasting fuel. But I don't mind my vehicles using a lot and I don't mind paying for it, still cheaper than bottled water. I don't know anyone that thinks there is a limitless supply, but I do believe that there will be a lot of IC engines and gasoline around when I die. My point is more that there has to be more econmic incentive to drive the market. The Tzero is really interesting and I support that kind of research because it will have a ripple into other areas in both transportation and other applications. But, it isn't for sale, and when it is, it will probably be pretty expensive. My slowest car is 250hp, is much cheaper, and has parts readily available.

What I want to see is something that can gain market share within the next few years. Something that has real economic power versus conventional vehicles. For instance, I am an avid motorcyle rider, what about electric bikes that can perform well. This looks like a great platform for electrics that can create a niche market and gain acceptance in the public market.

I was looking at an old school textbook from the 50's the other day that said that by the year 2000 every house would have its own nuclear reactor!!! Now thats power!

How about getting hydrogen from water ?

Ie: put water into your car, and use electrical energy to seperate it into oxygen and hydrogen.

Abe.

[ QUOTE ]
bigcozy said:
But I don't mind my vehicles using a lot and I don't mind paying for it


[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't mind you paying for it either. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif But I do mind you using lots of it. The unfortunate part is that your right to consume fast quantities of this stuff tramples on my right to enjoy energy independence and cleaner air and water. We all make our choices, and our choices often effect other's choices. No way around that. All I ask for is some thought on what everybody's freedom of choice does to others.

If this idea of alternate forms of transportation energy comes down to ONLY a matter of money, then we'll never get anywhere. Advancement costs money. In the long term (when mass produced) EVs cost less than ICE vehicles. We can't get to that point unless we purchase some of them now to make the market happen. Chicken and the egg, for sure.

[ QUOTE ]
But, it isn't for sale

[/ QUOTE ]
It most certainly is. I'll be meeting with the CEO of AC Propulsions tonight if you'd like me to put your order in. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif One was just sold last month.

[ QUOTE ]
My slowest car is 250hp, is much cheaper, and has parts readily available.

[/ QUOTE ]
My last car had 250HP as well, yet my EV1 is faster to 60mph. HP ain't the king of the hill - torque is. My EV1 is costing me $180/month. That $180 pays for the lease of the car, the charger, ALL maintenance, and the fuel. You're doing better than that? Sure this is due to incentives - but don't even get me going on the real price of gasoline that I'm helping to subsidize. This discussion shouldn't be about costs, as far as I'm concerned, but I know that part is important, and I'd be remiss not to mention that my EV1 is my highest performance car, and costs me less than any other car that I'd ever consider driving. BY LOTS.

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, I am an avid motorcyle rider, what about electric bikes that can perform well.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean a little bike with under 50hp that'll wheelie with a throttle roll? They exist. Here right now if you're really interested. They aren't cheap of course, but my guess is that they cost a bit less than your boat.

[ QUOTE ]
I was looking at an old school textbook from the 50's the other day that said that by the year 2000 every house would have its own nuclear reactor!!! Now thats power!

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Abe Furburger said:
How about getting hydrogen from water ?

Ie: put water into your car, and use electrical energy to seperate it into oxygen and hydrogen.


[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Abe. That's the idea, certainly. Here's the problem: It takes three to four times as much electricity to power a car a mile down the road this way than it does to directly charge a bank of batteries and use the power that way. For a given amount of electricity, there is no more efficient way to power a car than to use batteries. If we want inefficiency, we already have ICE (internal Combustion Engine) vehicles.

The FC advocates are constantly telling us that H2 is the most umbundant element around us. Almost as if we can just fill the tank with air, and happily motor down the road to energy independence. The problem is that the H2 is stuck to other stuff, and it REALLY likes to stay stuck there. Takes quite a bit of electricity to make it let go. So I can't help wondering: Why bother?

[ QUOTE ]
Abe Furburger said:
How about getting hydrogen from water ?

Ie: put water into your car, and use electrical energy to seperate it into oxygen and hydrogen.

Abe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's the electricity come from to separate the H from the O?

I am currently in the process of building a resonant cell which hopefully will separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water using much less energy than is currently required.

The trick here, is the resonance - energy which is currently wasted will be put to good use.

It is in the pipeline and will be ready for testing within 6 months.

The electricity to power it will come from a normal car engine/generator/battery set up.

So if all goes well - water will be looked upon as a fuel.

The ICE will need a bit of adjusting, but for short-term tests I will use a bog-standard engine converted to LPG - as all the fittings will be there already.

I am doing the electronics and hardware design work, and I have a friend doing the construction of the conversion cell and mechanical bits.

I will keep you all posted.

Best Regards,

Abe.

Hmmm. Oh boy! Future talk!!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It won't surprise anyone that's been following the Cafe that I think Diesel should and will be a big part of the near future. It is after all, multi-fuel. You can burn dino diesel if that is abundant and use BioDiesel (grown right here in the U.S. of A.) if dino diesel is not available.

I agree with Darell on the "it's not about the money" issue. When I buy a gallon of BioDiesel, it will cost me about 45% more than a gallon of dino diesel (at this time). I figure it'll cost me about $15/month extra for fuel to run BioDiesel (about what it costs for 2 people to see a movie?).

But...for $15, I will know that none of my money will go to gov'ts in the Middle East that deny their citizens free speech, freedom of religion or the right of self determiniation.

And...I'll know that my transportation has provided no reason to have a war to ensure the continued flow of oil.

And...I'll know that none of my fuel dollars will likely get donated to Al Queda to pay for flight school for plane hijackers or anything else they might need. Instead, my money will go to hard working farmers here in this country.

And...I'll be helping the balance of trade (which is WAY out of balance). We import way more than we export. Not a good thing for our economy at all. Money is flowing out of our country like gas thru a fire hose.

And...I'll know that no SuperTanker will rip its bottom on a reef and destroy someone's clean beaches for decades.

And...I'll know that I'm adding 78% less CO2 to the atmosphere than the people driving next to me in SUVs or even Hybrids.

All that, and I don't need to build any new infrastructure like Hydrogen stations or pipelines or public charging booths, etc. etc.

Plus, once we get low sulfer diesel fuel standards in place (2006), we can equip our diesels with catalytic converters just like gasoline cars and actually drive cleaner than any gas car can. BTW...BioDiesel has virtually no sulfer. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think that about all of the major reasons I like BioDiesel...

I also REALLY like Battery powered Electic Vehicles. I do believe that sooner or later, some company WILL decide that the technology is economically scalable to produce; perhaps as soon as a year or two. Darell's EV1 already proves that the technology is satisfactory for many people and their commuting.

Other notes:

BioDiesel is being experimented with for planes.

I do believe that "tele-presence" will become more and more popular. I've attended several multi-site video conferences. It is great! It's basically like being there but no travel, no waiting in air ports, taxis, hotels, etc., etc.

Great thread. Thanks for starting it Peter!

My view on this is no matter how long anyone thinks oil is going to last, we are using it up. At some point it will cost more to dig it up then it is worth.

My point is we are going to run out of oil soon or later and don't we want to have an alternative method of moving things from one place to another? I see no point in looking in to anything that uses fossil fuels to move us from point A to point B. Some people are looking at natural gas or other type fuels, yes we have more of them, but it is not a solution, it only delays the ultimate problem. We really only have one system in the US that is already to move fuel all over the place, our electric grid. We can add power to the grid from, oil fired plants, natural gas, coal, nuclear, water, wind, solar, and who know what else in the future, fusion? The system is already there, proven and it works and wouldn't cost millions to add.

So now we need a way to use electricity to power our people and product movers. GM already made it but no one wants to use it even though it would work for 90% of commuting. Personally I think they need to make an EV that people like to look at. I thought the Rav-4 was going to be it and I still think it would sell like hotcakes. To be honest the EV1 is goofy looking, I don't think that helped its case for the general public. I know that is a stupid reason, but I think it is a big one. I also think it is mentally to small for most people, again I think it is realistically big enough but it just goes against what people think they want.

Darell has said this before and I believe it also. I hope the current hybrids are just stepping-stones, I hope they continue to get smaller and smaller engines and larger and larger battery packs and electric motors. Then you could use them as EV's 90% of the time and have the ICE or any other generating type device to act as a backup for long trips.

Now someone tell me why in the world we would want a gasoline fuel cell car? I don't get it? It can't be more efficient than a hybrid can it? It certainly seems to be far more complex.

My idea is to use the most efficient engine as nothing but an electric generator to power the motors and/or charge the batteries. Basically like diesel electric trains, but with a battery in-between.

Ikendu, I am with you on bio-diesel. The problem I see is that we couldn't grow enough "fuel" to run the movers we currently use, not by a long shot. I am not saying we shouldn't look in to it, and I am not knocking it and I intend to use it whenever I can. I just don't see it as a true alternative. I sort of see it like solar power. We would have to cover too much of the earth, causing the temp of the earth itself to drop, and who knows what that would do. They had to dismantle a huge hot water solar array because the ground became permanently frozen under the array; even up to 1/4 mile away from the array people's lawns were dying.

The way I see it we either need to drastically reduce the energy we use or we need to come up with a cleaner way to produce more of it.