Energy (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2024, 03:08:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Energy (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Energy  (Read 1077 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« on: May 17, 2005, 12:02:43 AM »

Perhaps this time General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler will get the "jump on the competition" and in so doing, save themselves from bankruptcy.

GM and Ford are both heading for bankruptcy to lighten their pension obligations, but will likely continue to operate unlike MG Rover.

However, if I owned a Pontiac dealership, I'd be selling now while the selling is good.  GM operates too many brands here in the US, and Pontiac AFAIK, has no presence outside North America and so would be the easiest of GM's brands to be contracted at the moment.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2005, 10:08:49 PM »

As a commuter car, electric vehicles can make good economic sense.  The problem is that most people don't want a car that can only be used as a commuter car.

Interchangeable battery packs look to be a practical solution to the recharging problem, but only if they can solve the range problem so that a vehicle can go at least 300 km without stopping for service.  Even then you've got the infrastructure problem, but that's fairly easy, if expensive to solve.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2005, 03:15:29 PM »

The biggest hurdle will probably be finding the best way to store the hydrogen for a car - whether liquified or bound in a solid metal hydride.
The biggest hurdle is price.  The main advantage of the internal combustion engine is that it is a proven technology that is easy to build.  Biofuels can be used in internal combustion engines, solve the same greenhouse gas problem as more exptic technologies, and don't require new infrastructure for their distribution.  It is only the cost of biofuels compared to petrofuels that has kept them from being more widely used.  Until IC alternatives reach the point of being cheaper than biofueled IC engines, they will remain laboratory curiosities.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2005, 01:15:39 AM »

Actually, as I understand it, the main problem with fuel cells is that unless you have extremely pure fuels, the fuel cells quickly degrade.  The cost of refining fuel to the standard required by fuel cells is what made them impractical as general purpose power sources.  They've made improvements but they have not yet reached the tipping point.  Iceland is likely the place fuel cells will reach the tipping point of usability first, but that is primarily due to the local supply of geothermal energy for cheap electricity with which to make the hydrogen fuel, and the lack of any cheap local sources of biofuels.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.