I see you got the Charlie Sheen package. Winning! :tup:

On the price front, there's about 2-3 more years worth of work before supercaps are a viable primary storage device, and then we are probably 5-6 years of regulation away from things being more economical to make the switch.

This thread has forced Rush's "Red Barchetta" song into my brain.

Not my favorite Rush song. Please get it out.

*goes to wikipedia to look up supercapacitors*

Did the same. Didn't understand much of it outside of there are pros and cons.

Funny, I've been playing Tom Sawyer in my head ever since I woke up this morning. :bowrofl:

I did get most of it, it definitely shared a lot in common with what I learned in my Batteries and Fuel Cells class last semester. I would love to get a job working with this stuff :tup:

They will make KERS systems much more efficient due to the ability to charge nearly instantly (limited by RC time constant, but relative to a battery, almost instant). The ability to pull so much more energy from KERS will dramatically increase the range, which has always been a sore spot for EVs. The instant charging will also alleviate the "plug in overnight" problem....caps are also MUCH less volatile than a battery.

The problem we now run into is the distribution system...we don't currently have the infrastructure to bring power to all these cars....

Pfft. Greenie Prius drivers will tell you that the coal fired electric plants are far better on the environment than a ultra low emissions gas powered Civic/Corolla/Sentra/5.0h/etc.

:icon18: THIS

Well obviously they're right, they drive a Prius! :rolleyes:

Prius the 5.0 of the gods.

I assume you are talking about the electrical grid and I would agree. Our power grid is antiquated at best. I keep wondering if/when we will ever modernize our national power distribution system. I would think this would be an easy sell to the power that be, but who knows...

On a related note, my biggest concerns with swapping to pure EV (many years/decades from now) would be what it does to the price of electricity in general and whether or not we would have the constant throughput to handle all these cars being plugged in to the power grid without going over capacity.

In the meantime, I expect to see gasoline hybrids and natural gas (insert alternative type fuel) hybrids becoming the norm. I would really like to see a push for natural gas since it is cleaner than gasoline, we have lots of it here, is easily on tap, and would not require to much change from our normal combustion engines. I want hybrids to get a bigger foothold first. We don't need to go gas -> gas/hybrid -> nat gas -> nat gas/hybrid because then we are back to where we started from only X number of years down the road. I also think (and I could be wrong) that our infrastructure for gasonline distribution can be easily repurposed for natural gas distribution. My thoughts anyway...

But CLEAN coal sir, you forgot about the new and improved clean coal.

Part of me throws up evertime I see one of those commercials...

All we gotta do is chop the tops of mountains to get it!

Mt. Saint Helens before/after shot:

http://dayswithmydaughter.com/wp-con..._and_after.jpg

I don't know about you, but I feel progress was made here. :happydance:

It is easier to regulate on the plant level, to be fair.

I'm all about moving to more nuclear power, and it's not just because nuclear power plants buy a lot of the same electronics that are used in missile control :icon17:





Honestly, while generation is a concern, the distribution network is definitely more of a weak point. There is a lot of untapped capacity in many plants, especially here (our local nuclear facility is nowhere near capacity, and easy to ramp up). I also believe (just personal opinion) that there is going to be more propagation of nuclear power facilities-- if nothing else (based on sales trends), there are a lot more places doing research to demonstrate safety.

A big worry is distribution. You've heard the BS lines about how people will be charging at night (off peak, etc). Realistically, every is going to plug in their car when they get home around 6-- well within heavy use hours. Even if we try to limit peak charging, people will need to do mid-day charging for a variety of reasons (road trip, lots of errands, trucks/deliveries).

This chart shows pretty clearly how much is being used for transport...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Flow_2009.png

To put it simply, the distribution system simply cannot support the additional strain of EVs, and beefing it up is the real area holding back development. The lead times on some of the transformers needed to do this run in the order of YEARS-- we're talking pressed layers of metal the size of an SUV.

The VRs included on most EVs also represent an active load, which is potentially problematic. In standard operation, there is no issue, but certain failure modes could cause substantial issues for the grid-- you potentially wind up dealing with funky harmoncs and all that jazz, and you* affect your power factor. You'll hear a lot of talk about using parked cars to stabilize the grid, but it is going to be really different to implement properly since the cars can switch into and out of the grid whenever they want. I think the freedom that comes with the "grab it and go" aspect of your own car is something people won't give up, and that makes life really tough for power engineers.

Basically, what needs to happen to make the switch is the government needs to decide the switch is being made, and then subsidize the move for both the energy industry, as well as the automakers (or regulate the crap out of them to force their hand). Given the current economic situation, neither is really likely right now.

To have enough electricity & have it cheap enough for mass EV/hybrid use, we need a nuke reactor outside every big city. For some reason, nuke power does not get much emphesis. This power source is almost endless, can be cheap, plenty of material for fuel out west, never killed a single person in U.S. ever, & by-product is clean steam. Why is it not our dominent source? I don't know.

Longest post ever from an iPhone? It probably doesnt make much sense :icon17:

I'm picking up what you're laying down. :tiphat:

We can thank our current president for the moratorium on offshore drilling. He bent over :icon23: for the "green" special interest groups, who I presume is the huge influence being referenced. The major political shift can certainly happen in the near future, though; especially, after the train wreck currently in power is removed from office. The momentum is already there. It just needs to follow through.

I agree with whoever said this earlier that a political section would be a good idea. I'd be all over that like white on rice.

True

It is heavily regulated, and with good reason.

LIKE WHAT REASON? Thousands die mining for coal & oil & their pollution kill even more. AGAIN, not a single person ever died in the U.S. from a nuke reactor.....

Everyone loves Nuclear power, but when you talk about putting a nuke plant in their backyard they suddenly change their tune.

When Homer Simpson is at the helm, nuclear power seems like an even worse idea.

Tough nuggies..... If it's 30 miles outside the city, you take it or pay 3 times as much for electricity. Give the cities a choice! Facts(safety) are facts!

I feel kind of the opposite in this regard. I would say in theory, it is easier to make transitions like this when times are good and the economy is just rolling along but I would also say that during these times, people do not want change since that change can potientially stop the wheels and therefore in actuality, it is harder to make these fundamental changes when times are good.

I think this because I cannot come up with an instance where our government has ever been foreward thinking with regards to the well being of the citizens. It seems to always be reactionary to what has happened in the immediate past. Industry is a little different. They do definitely look to the future, but oftentimes it is driven by the idea of profits and not necessarily for the greater good of society.

I think the best times to make these fundamental shifts are when times are tough. People seem more willing to make changes and take risks when they down if for no other reason, they have nothing to lose and are desperate to get back on their feet.

Its kind of counter-intuitive I guess, but thats how my brain works sometimes. Hopefully this makes sense. :tiphat:

The reason nuclear power has such a good record is partly because of the regulations. If it didn't, deaths would follow. Most/all forms of energy production have risks, nuclear included.

I think a lot of this has to do with lack of education of the subject.

Actually it makes a lot of sense and I completely agree with you. :tup:

What are you talking about? Homer Simpson has Sector 7G on lockdown :bowrofl:

And it would create a bunch of new job opportunities, but why would we want that? :rolleyes:

Ever designed a control system before?

:iagree:

If something were to go wrong at a nuclear plant, it could be far more disastrous than something like a coal fired power plant. It's always better to be safe than sorry.

In theory, I agree. However, since I make my living convincing the government to spend money, I have to disagree in practice.

YES!

Difference with nuclear is the low cost risk is low (ie, unlikely to have some miners die), but there's a super high cost (though low risk) possibility that is not there with other methods of power generation.

I think at this point we don't have enough to base our opinions on. There hasn't been any great electric cars that can compete with great petrol cars. Petrol cars have been around for so long that we've seen them progress and evolve. We came from the Ford Model T to the Ferrari 458 Italia. We really can't compare current electric cars with modern day petrol cars because they need some time to evolve.

I wonder how many people here have ever driven a hybrid car? The transitions between the electric power plant to gas during idle isn't anything to desire, it feels clumsy and I thought there was something wrong with the car when I first got into one (hybrid Altima)... Lol. I hope they design whole new models instead of using the cars that built their heritage on the pure driving experience.

The Nissan product planning chief said the z won't follow the direction that Toyota went with the 86 by making the z smaller and lighter. However if they bring out a smaller and lighter sports car it would be all electric. So why is everyone thinking the next z is going to be all electric or a hybrid?

Theoretical discussions.

http://m.cbsnews.com/searchsynopsis....nb_splitPage=0

Even the government is getting tired with supporting hybrid tech. Lol.

This makes me happy.