When will people learn that hydrogen is safer than petrol/gas

[Red Iron Crown]

You may well do, but if so it would make you somewhat atypical. Of Canada's 560ish TWh of annual electricity production, only about 2.3 TWh is generated from fuel oil. That's about 0.5%, which is even lower than the overall world figure of 5%.

I checked the numbers, turns out I was exaggerating a bit. A bit over 25% of the power on my local grid comes from one oil-fired plant, the rest is from hydro. The plant was built in '71 and is scheduled to be retired in 2017 when a new hydro megaproject comes on line.

[Seret]

The plant was built in '71 and is scheduled to be retired in 2017 when a new hydro megaproject comes on line.

Right before the oil price shocks starting in '73, ouch. Bet they lost huge money on that.

There's an oil-fired station near me too, but I've never once seen it running. AFAIK the only reason it's still open is because it's got OCGTs, so could black-start. The EU directives on fossil fuel plants effectively mean almost all the remaining old ones will be shutting down next year.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Seret

[karolus10]

I must say that I don't see much future for Hydrogen use in cars, both for internal combustion and on-board energy generation.

As much as fully electric cars aren't very viable today (but it's close future with improving batteries and super-capacitors) I think that hybrids with fully electric transmission (like in modern trains) are far superior to vehicles using internal combustion engine... You still use IC engine to spin electric generator (with capacitors as short duration power buffer to store extra energy from generator and braking), but it's more lightweight and optimized for it's purpose.

Also you getting rid of gearbox and most of transmission as electric motors are connected directly to the axles (4 wheel drive would be rather standard feature in electric cars).

Edited June 2, 2014 by karolus10

[Seret]

Also you getting rid of gearbox and most of transmission as electric motors are connected directly to the axles (4 wheel drive would be rather standard feature in electric cars).

Normally they're not. Hub motors are cool, but they have problems with ride quality due to the high unsprung mass. Series hybrids (the kind you're talking about) like the Honda Insight still only use one electric motor and a normal final drive. Most (all?) hybrids on the road do still use a transmission, too.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm somewhat surprised no one has developed a gas turbine/electric series hybrid. Gas turbines are more efficient than piston engines, are lower mass for the same power, and electric drive means the main disadvantage of the turbine, namely poor throttling behavior and RPM range sensitivity, are mitigated.

[Seret]

I'm somewhat surprised no one has developed a gas turbine/electric series hybrid.

They have, at least as a concept car: Jaguar C-X75

[karolus10]

Normally they're not. Hub motors are cool, but they have problems with ride quality due to the high unsprung mass. Series hybrids (the kind you're talking about) like the Honda Insight still only use one electric motor and a normal final drive. Most (all?) hybrids on the road do still use a transmission, too.

I agree, hub motors are rather troublesome and I was thinking more about having one motor per axle like in Tesla cars.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's too bad about the unsprung mass thing with hub motors, it's otherwise a great packaging solution.

Seret, hadn't seen that Jaguar before, thanks for the link. I was thinking about something mere mortals might be able to drive, maybe the tech will trickle down.

[phoenix_ca]

Gas turbine hybrid trucks:

http://www.hybridcars.com/wrightspeed-combines-gas-turbine-and-batteries-for-big-fuel-savings/

Might not see it in mid-range and low-end cars but quite likely in high-end cars and even more trucks.

[Nibb31]

It's too bad about the unsprung mass thing with hub motors, it's otherwise a great packaging solution.

Seret, hadn't seen that Jaguar before, thanks for the link. I was thinking about something mere mortals might be able to drive, maybe the tech will trickle down.

The Chevrolet Volt (or Opel or Vauxhall Ampera in Europe) has been on the market since 2011. The electric motors drive the wheels and a generator provides extra charge when you're away from home on a long trip. The generator is not a gas turbine, but a conventional internal combustion engine that runs at a constant optimal rpm. BMW and Volvo offer a similar system called a "range extender" as an option on their electric cars. Other manufacturers might do the same...

As I said, there's a wide offering of electric cars nowadays from major car manufacturers (Renault, Ford, GM, VW, Mercedes, etc...). These are aimed at average consumers like you and me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_cars_currently_available

Really folks, EVs are here, they're available, they work, and they're affordable. For example, Renault sells its Zoe at pretty much the price of a high-end Clio. You rent the batteries for a monthly fee and the charging cost goes on your electricity bill. Battery rental plus charging cost is much lower than your monthly fuel bill.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Nibb31

[Aghanim]

If only they solved the unsprung mass problem... than translation is possible! Parking will be much easier

[Red Iron Crown]

Nibb31, I was more referring to a turbine electric hybrid being available at mainstream pricing. I agree that there are many pure EVs available, for little or no additional cost over their IC brethren.

[shynung]

I'm somewhat surprised no one has developed a gas turbine/electric series hybrid. Gas turbines are more efficient than piston engines, are lower mass for the same power, and electric drive means the main disadvantage of the turbine, namely poor throttling behavior and RPM range sensitivity, are mitigated.

Gas turbines are quite loud. I'm thinking something on the range of a mini-turboprop engine minus the propeller. Noise suppression would be a challenge, at least.

On the plus side, most of the components are rotating, rather than reciprocating. Possibly less engine vibration, if balanced correctly.

[Nuke]

If only they solved the unsprung mass problem... than translation is possible! Parking will be much easier

im wondering about some kind of motor/suspension hybrid where the wheel is essentially on a magnetic bearing that also doubles as the motor. the wheel rim is essentially a ring of neodymium magnets floating about the hub coils so it would allow some wiggle room for shock absorption. this might be used in addition to some kind of active suspension. it would take some rather complicated control stuffs to make it all work without being totally unstable.

[Nibb31]

Hub motors increase the unsprung mass. On the other hand, they offer independent power distribution and braking on each wheel, which offers a great increase in safety and performance. And you can do away with the old disk brakes altogether.

[phoenix_ca]

Gas turbines are quite loud. I'm thinking something on the range of a mini-turboprop engine minus the propeller. Noise suppression would be a challenge, at least.

Just the opposite. Had you looked at the link I posted earlier you'd note that that turbine is actually quite quiet; the truck doesn't even have a muffler and all it makes is a soft whirring. Stick a muffler on it and it could be even quieter.

[Fizwalker]

No, what thunderf00t said is exactly a set of obstacles that can't be avoided. I was waiting for someone to make that video because I was facepalming so hard when douchebags started spreading the original viral video around. It's unbelieveably stupid.

Those roads not only present impossible technological problems, but also try to violate the basic thermodynamic principles. thunderf00t explained it brilliantly with such clear arguments.

The whole solar power electrical business is poorly feasible (or not at all) outside highly insolated areas, let alone a road covered with tempered glass which would be a driving hazard.

The whole thing is not comparable to Wright brothers, to Galileo or any other token guy out there that people like to pull out from their sleeves when they're faced with arguments.

Really? Not comparable at all? Lets actually look at the Wright Bros. ( Yes I know, not comparable at all.... Unless you actually look at them). The Wright flyer could only travel around 100 feet. It could carry 1 person over that distance and it needed 12 people and a weight powered catapult just to get it into the air. It's not hard to conclude that flight was just a really cool trick and nothing more. How many people do you think dismissed powered flight as a passing fad? How many people trotted out arguments why flight was ultimately doomed? Yet, a century later, we can see that powered flight was a good idea. However, with what was known then, given the performance of the invention at the time, do you really think that it would be a good investment? Not comparable at all. Lets see.... A horse and buggy, cheaper than hiring 12 people to go 100 feet.... Or you can get a ticket on a train.... and go farther than 100 feet. If you want to go across an ocean, (which the Wright Flyer couldn't do) you could get a ticket on an ocean liner. All the tech for railways, and steam ships was already there. Both could go farther, faster and more efficiently than the Wright Flyer. Again, not comparable at all.

Before you state that something isn't comparable, you probably ought to do a little research into it. Maybe consider the circumstances of the time, or at least make an argument why it's not comparable before making a declarative statement like that. As it is, I see nothing in your post that suggests anything I stated previously is wrong. That being, Solar Roads are not feasible now, but might be in the future.

[lajoswinkler]

Really? Not comparable at all? Lets actually look at the Wright Bros. ( Yes I know, not comparable at all.... Unless you actually look at them). The Wright flyer could only travel around 100 feet. It could carry 1 person over that distance and it needed 12 people and a weight powered catapult just to get it into the air. It's not hard to conclude that flight was just a really cool trick and nothing more. How many people do you think dismissed powered flight as a passing fad? How many people trotted out arguments why flight was ultimately doomed? Yet, a century later, we can see that powered flight was a good idea. However, with what was known then, given the performance of the invention at the time, do you really think that it would be a good investment? Not comparable at all. Lets see.... A horse and buggy, cheaper than hiring 12 people to go 100 feet.... Or you can get a ticket on a train.... and go farther than 100 feet. If you want to go across an ocean, (which the Wright Flyer couldn't do) you could get a ticket on an ocean liner. All the tech for railways, and steam ships was already there. Both could go farther, faster and more efficiently than the Wright Flyer. Again, not comparable at all.

Before you state that something isn't comparable, you probably ought to do a little research into it. Maybe consider the circumstances of the time, or at least make an argument why it's not comparable before making a declarative statement like that. As it is, I see nothing in your post that suggests anything I stated previously is wrong. That being, Solar Roads are not feasible now, but might be in the future.

You obviously either didn't watch thundferf00t's video, or didn't understand it.

[ZedNova]

Really? Not comparable at all? Lets actually look at the Wright Bros. ( Yes I know, not comparable at all.... Unless you actually look at them). The Wright flyer could only travel around 100 feet. It could carry 1 person over that distance and it needed 12 people and a weight powered catapult just to get it into the air. It's not hard to conclude that flight was just a really cool trick and nothing more. How many people do you think dismissed powered flight as a passing fad? How many people trotted out arguments why flight was ultimately doomed? Yet, a century later, we can see that powered flight was a good idea. However, with what was known then, given the performance of the invention at the time, do you really think that it would be a good investment? Not comparable at all. Lets see.... A horse and buggy, cheaper than hiring 12 people to go 100 feet.... Or you can get a ticket on a train.... and go farther than 100 feet. If you want to go across an ocean, (which the Wright Flyer couldn't do) you could get a ticket on an ocean liner. All the tech for railways, and steam ships was already there. Both could go farther, faster and more efficiently than the Wright Flyer. Again, not comparable at all.

Before you state that something isn't comparable, you probably ought to do a little research into it. Maybe consider the circumstances of the time, or at least make an argument why it's not comparable before making a declarative statement like that. As it is, I see nothing in your post that suggests anything I stated previously is wrong. That being, Solar Roads are not feasible now, but might be in the future.

While i hate to get off topic, here's a few things Thunderf00t pointed out:

1) How do you get traction on glass in bad weather? How is a 20 ton tractor trailer going to even stop on glass?

2) Even dirt will erode the glass if there's cars on it.

3) You can't see LED's outside during the day. Especially at and angle and 20 feet away in your car.

4) Putting solar roadways in place of parking lots wouldn't be worth it, considering cars park on it during the day. A solar roof over the parking lot would be much better and totally feasible.

5) It's damn expensive.

6) If you don't quickly move the energy, (Preferably at high voltages), use or store it, you lose part of it.

And these are just a handful of problems he pointed out.

Edited June 6, 2014 by ZedNova

[K^2]

No, what thunderf00t said is exactly a set of obstacles that can't be avoided. I was waiting for someone to make that video because I was facepalming so hard when douchebags started spreading the original viral video around. It's unbelieveably stupid.

No, actually, as usual, he has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. Friction coefficient of the glass to rubber is as good as that of concrete, and you can get the rest with modifying the surface. The road is only responsible for these last few parts of the millimeter. The rest is handled by the tire. Ever wondered why it has treads, and why it's illegal to drive on a bald tire? Anybody with the most basic understanding of physics knows that glass is a good driving surface. And glass isn't hard? Compared to what? Granite? Unfortunately, we don't build roads out of that, either. These panels need to last 2 decades at the most, because that's the life time of the solar cell, and glass is sufficiently hard for that. You know what isn't? Asphalt.

The only reason we use asphalt in so many places is because it is cheap. Other materials have better longevity (no potholes every spring) and better traction. If thunderf00t ever got off his fat ass and traveled through some southern states, he'd notice that they rarely use asphalt there. Because it frigin' melts. What do they use? Concrete panels. They are larger than solar road panels, but they still use panel design, essentially, and they don't have any problems with it. In fact, roads last for many years without needs for significant repair. It's more expensive, but it works.

So the glass tiles are going to provide a surface with sufficient traction and durability. So on the most important feature, strike one. They are perfectly functional.

Of course, we get back to the costs. As I've said, the only reason we use asphalt is because it has decent properties, not good, but passable, and it is very cheap. So, thunderf00t looks at the cost of the glass panels, and screams that it's too expensive. Of course, if he'd bother to look at the price of a solar panel with the same surface area, he'd realize that it's much more expensive. So by his logic, obviously, nobody would ever consider installing a solar panel because of its costs, right?

But in the real world, we like to look at what we are actually getting out of the solar panel. And even in United States, a solar panel pays for itself over its life time almost double. A solar panel with a tempered glass pane will also pay for itself even at current prices of electricity, and these are sure to increase.

So strike two. Even though these things are very expensive in the short run, the electricity they provide over life time costs more. And you get a road you don't have to repair every year as a bonus.

Moving on. The last part of it all that I consider important. Distribution network. Every morning when thunderf00t wakes up, goes to the bathroom, and flips the light switch, the light bulbs instantly explode, because he forgot that he has a 30kV line leading directly to his home. What? He doesn't? But how does he get the power, which can only be efficiently distributed using high voltage lines? Oh. He gets it from a transformer nearby, which gets its power from a sub-station which has already reduced the voltage? So moving power over shorter distances at lower voltage is ok? So all we really need to do is have the solar roadways plug into an AC converter every few hundred yards, and then collect power from larger and larger area to be directed to sub-stations? Huh. In fact, this can probably be done using the same infrastructure that already exists to light a lot of the roads.

And that would be strike three. Power distribution isn't a problem at all. It might be in some areas. But the nice thing about the project is that we don't have to try and cover all of the US at once. We can start with medium sized cities in the South, where they already know the value of building roads to last, where they have more sunny days, and where there is sufficient number of roadways with power distribution in place already. There, it's simply going to make economic sense to build with these tiles instead of concrete tiles next time the road does happen to need repair.

And these are the only things that matters. The rest are just gimmicks. Though, thunderf00t clearly doesn't realize how little power LEDs would need to provide some functionality at night or during the rain to make roads so much easier to navigate. But I don't even care about that. Or about the whole "recycled materials" crap. I don't care how they sell this idea. I'm not even sure this particular product is ever going to make it. But the idea of using solar panels to pave roads is absolutely solid. It makes both environmental and economical sense, and we are going to have that sooner or later.

[phoenix_ca]

Reasoned argument isn't a baseball game. You didn't refute the points about heating water on roads, LEDs during daylight conditions, or the issue of using tiles instead of a flat surface. If even one of the latter two or correct, this is a bad idea.

Edited June 8, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[sjwt]

[quote name='K^2;1199809

The only reason we use asphalt in so many places is because it is cheap. Other materials have better longevity (no potholes every spring) and better traction. If thunderf00t ever got off his fat ass and traveled through some southern states' date=' he'd notice that they rarely use asphalt there. Because it frigin' melts. What do they use? Concrete panels. They are larger than solar road panels, but they still use panel design, essentially, and they don't have any problems with it. In fact, roads last for many years without needs for significant repair. It's more expensive, but it works.[/quote']

And only in the short term, over the life of the road its cheaper for high trafficked areas, you also get good flow on effects, such as increased fuel efficiency and less ware and tear on vehicles traveling them.

[sjwt]

While i hate to get off topic, here's a few things Thunderf00t pointed out:

1) How do you get traction on glass in bad weather? How is a 20 ton tractor trailer going to even stop on glass?

2) Even dirt will erode the glass if there's cars on it.

3) You can't see LED's outside during the day. Especially at and angle and 20 feet away in your car.

4) Putting solar roadways in place of parking lots wouldn't be worth it, considering cars park on it during the day. A solar roof over the parking lot would be much better and totally feasible.

5) It's damn expensive.

6) If you don't quickly move the energy, (Preferably at high voltages), use or store it, you lose part of it.

And these are just a handful of problems he pointed out.

1) The same way it stops on *****erman, and I think someone else pointed out that friction between glass and rubber is slightly higher so quicker would be the answer

2) The same way that oils and petrol do brake down *****erman roads, as well as dirt and rocks, but oil and petrol will not dissolve glass.

3) Sure you can, but I'm not sure what that has to do with it, do you guys have those annoying LED signs by roads now, visible as far as the eye can see!

4) An argument for the infrastructure and feasibility guys, the point of the roads is they become the majority of the infrastructure as they go everywhere and are connected in many many redundant ways, where as parking lots might be fine in some areas, but you have underground ones to consider that wont contribute, the roads are pretty closely laid out in relation to use and population density and their are many more of them.

5) So are roads, the idea is to use cheapest level cells, some of the developments there are heading to cells that are 1/2 as efficient as top level ones for dirt cheep prices, but in the end you are combining in two lots of maintenance costs into one, roads and power, hell you might as well run fiber with them to.

6) Batteries on silicon are in development, you can literally turn the back side of your solar cell into a batter with more storage the lithium.

[phoenix_ca]

Why is a moderator getting censored? Why would you devolve to vulgar language (because that's the only stuff that gets censored, right)? I find that very ironic.

3) Sure you can, but I'm not sure what that has to do with it, do you guys have those annoying LED signs by roads now, visible as far as the eye can see!

This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how light works. For those lights to be visible, they need to simultaneously prevent sunlight from hitting the background they are mounted to (so there is enough contrast for the lights to be visible), and transmit as much of their light as possible toward the viewer. The design of those solar roadway tiles is fundamentally flawed, as they do neither. The LEDs are bare, so their light gets transmitted in all directions away from and toward the tiles. Those LED road signs and studs you see are on black backgrounds for contrast, have shades (similar to a photographic grid) to prevent sunlight from falling on them and reflecting, and transmit most of their light toward the viewer. Remove those and they would be far less visible.

Here's what it takes to actually over-power the sun with a bare xenon bulb for a few milliseconds in quick succession: http://profoto.com/int/products/pro-system-generators-heads-accessories/pro-studio-generators/item/pro-8a-1200

Here's a company that actually makes the things. Pretty much none of those are just a bare LED bulb slapped on a surface. They're designed to reflect that light in a particular direction.

Edited June 8, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[sjwt]

Why is a moderator getting censored? Why would you devolve to vulgar language (because that's the only stuff that gets censored, right)? I find that very ironic.

Nothing ironic about it, if a mod was post word on the censored list then it should still be censored .. The issue here is that im dyslexic, and as such at the time I could not get a good spelling on bitumen, so I fell back on a more phonetic solution.. I didn't see the 2+2 their.