The shape of things to come ?

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Chevrolet-Volt-All-Electric/246503/

One day all cars will be like this - and I reckon that day may not be too far in the future because this little Chevy makes conventional cars start to look obsolete .

No. Hybrids will never be the way forward completely as they still rely on an ICE to be of any practical use.

The Prius is an environmental disaster wrapped up in a hemp dress and so will this be. The Lithium Ion batteries are manufactured in ways that would make Al Gore sh** his pants.

Leaving aside the environmental manufacturing issues, the problem with hybrid cars is that they are a halfway house. Neither fish nor fowl. They carry extra weight, in the form of the dead weight of either motor when not running efficiently, or at all. Plug the car into the mains and the power has to be supplied somehow, usually by a fossil fuel. So hybrids are a step sideways.

There are two good things about the hybrid car. 1, they emit less CO2, but it has to be emitted from somewhere. However, that other somewhere is a power station, where the control of pollutents and greenhouse gases oght to be more easily confined and controlled. 2, that they get people off the petrol or diesel car merry-go-round, and into thinking a little bit more responsibly. However, mains electricity efficiency is as low as 36%, once all the losses have been accounted for over the distance from power station to wall socket. So, as even a medium term replacement for the petrol/diesel engine, the hybrid car is a non-starter. And an expensive non-starter at that.

The shape of power to come in the distant future needs a source that is either almost entirely free of pollutents or greenhouse gases, or none at all. At the moment there is only one contender, and that is the hydrogen car. Its waste product is water, and its fuel is the most abundant element in the universe. However, on Earth it is almost exclusively bonded to oxygen, and it likes to stay that way. It takes plenty of electrical energy in the form of electrolysis to part those molecules, and that electrical energy has to be got ffrom somewhere.

Nowadays, those sci-fi ideas, of the past, of sticking fields of solar cell panels in the desert are not so sci-fi. In fact, they are beginning to be taken very seriously indeed. But they are just one of several ways of obtaining power, along with wind turbines, wave and tidal power, etc... You'd have thought there would be enough alternatives to go around.

Well how about one that might just be completely free..? In the last few weeks, Steorn have been making a few announcements and demonstrations. In the next few weeks they say they are going to demonstrate over-unity to the world. They will have their own test equipment, but they are inviting people to come along and plug their own test machinery into their power units to measure the amount of over-unity. There is a demonstration going on right now of a unit, said to be outputing 150%. It only manages that because it is a simple demonstration model, but they do have more complicated examples outputting 200% and much more - so they say. Not only that, but they have engineers who are backing it now and companies who are applying for licences to develop and manufacture. This has all been very hush-hush because, like heretics before them [anyone remember Eric Laithwaite and his gyros..?] the science community are going la-la-la, can't hear, can't hear, with their fingers in their ears and with their eyes closed.

Now I know scientific method. I know that you postulate a theory and then try every means to disprove it, and if it stands up significantly then it might be worth considering. But science doesn't like the boat to be rocked hugely. It proceeds in the direction that it is facing. Scientists design test equipment for the things they wish to find. So if they are not looking, then it's either a done deal, or it doesn't exist. Well over-unity doesn't exist. That one was laid to bed a century and more ago. But perhaps science is actually wrong..? Or maybe science is just are not looking in the right direction..? Or perhaps it's not looking at all..?

The future of power..? I wonder how the oil producing countries will take it..? Ouch might be an appropriate single word.

The hydrogen fuel cell may well be the medium term future of the car (indeed the potential of this technology is truly exciting) but in the short term I think the hybrid has a part to play in reducing emissions . We don't yet know the price of the Volt but if you could sell it profitably for only a modest premium over ICE powered cars it could be the biggest leap forward since the Model T .

The hydrogen fuel cell may well be the medium term future of the car , indeed the potential of this technology is truly exciting , but in the short term I think the hybrid has a part to play in reducing emissions . We don't yet know the price of the Volt but if you could sell it profitably for only a modest premium over ICE powered cars it could be the biggest leap forward since the Model T .

But hybrid cars don't reduce emissions, that's just the point. A VW Polo Bluemotion will return twice the fuel economy of a Prius in normal driving conditions, and surely most of you will remember the episode of TG when a Prius, driven hard, was proved LESS economical than a BMW M3 following it, at the same pace.

As driver, we can do far more to reduce emissions by adjusting our driving style, than we will by buying a Volt or a Toyota Pious.

But hybrid cars don't reduce emissions, that's just the point. A VW Polo Bluemotion will return twice the fuel economy of a Prius in normal driving conditions, and surely most of you will remember the episode of TG when a Prius, driven hard, was proved LESS economical than a BMW M3 following it, at the same pace.

 

As driver, we can do far more to reduce emissions by adjusting our driving style, than we will by buying a Volt or a Toyota Pious.

Now come on Ponty, that BMW v Prius test was absolute bollix. All it proved was that a particular bigger engine was more economical when driven behind a smaller engined car driven to its extreme. Complete tosh..! When driven correctly, the Prius DOES emit less, as a unit, on its own. I say nothing for the electricity produced elsewhere. I know the VW Bluemotion blows the Prius concept to smithereens, but that was not part of the subject before. Does the VW emit less pollution and CO2..? Off the cuff, I don't know. I'm always wary of diesel particulates.

Now come on Ponty, that BMW v Prius test was absolute bollix. All it proved was that a particular bigger engine was more economical when driven behind a smaller engined car driven to its extreme. Complete tosh..! When driven correctly, the Prius DOES emit less, as a unit, on its own. I say nothing for the electricity produced elsewhere. I know the VW Bluemotion blows the Prius concept to smithereens, but that was not part of the subject before. Does the VW emit less pollution and CO2..? Off the cuff, I don't know. I'm always wary of diesel particulates.

Mmm, but the onus is on the driver, not the car. What I'm saying is, if we were all forced to buy hybrids, I could still make it less economical and more polluting than an M3, if I so desired... And I would.

But hybrid cars don't reduce emissions, that's just the point. A VW Polo Bluemotion will return twice the fuel economy of a Prius in normal driving conditions, and surely most of you will remember the episode of TG when a Prius, driven hard, was proved LESS economical than a BMW M3 following it, at the same pace.

 

As driver, we can do far more to reduce emissions by adjusting our driving style, than we will by buying a Volt or a Toyota Pious.

Personal experience tells me that my old Volvo V70 wagon delivers almost exactly the same 25 MPG whatever you do to it .

A hybrid such as this new Chevy Volt for instance undertaking a shortish journey (I only do 10-20 miles a day normally) could do the whole trip on electric power only - now if that electric charge were generated from mains clean renewable energy resources or nuclear power (which I advocate) then your daily commute could be virtually 'emissions free' one day would it not .

The fatal flaw in current purely battery powered vehicles (such as the Tesla) is that their range limitations and the unacceptable length of time it takes to recharge their power packs makes them impracticable for most users - the hybrid (imperfect as they are) seem to answer many of those problems to a degree at least . It's not just little me arguing this the giants of the motor industry are now concentrating their efforts on developing hybrid technology I understand so there must be something in it .

Why manufacturers don't use more fuel efficient small turbodiesel engines in their hybrids is a question I have no answer for .

To me, the adoption of hybrid cars is going in the right direction, but a bit too slowly. I see Ponty's point, and I also see Ponty's bias in that he just doesn't want to lose the petrol/diesel engine, because of its characteristics. Hey, I'm with you there mate. My bike has all those beautiful characteristics in spades. I love the performance of the petrol engine and I would hate to see it go. Perhaps the adoption of alternative technology engines will allow us to drive the old petrol cars and bikes for fun at the weekend..? But maybe not.

At the moment, my interest is in how much energy is required to separate hydrogen from oxygen on an industrial scale, and to what cost [any quick answers would be welcomed]. It is the lack of infrastructure that stops the hydrogen car storming to the front of the very short queue of technologies that are able to do the same job as the petrol/diesel powered vehicle, and in exactly the same level of convenience. Yet it does take energy to produce automotive fuels too. It doesn't pop out of the earth ready to make power. But the petrol/diesel car had no such obstacle when it was first introduced. There was literally no infrastructure then, full stop; nothing in the way, save the horse and the blacksmith, and he could turn his hand to anything else. Besides, the petrol engine saved that animal a life of drudgery. But we have an obstacle now - the oil based economies of the world, and the infrastructure that goes with that.

So I suppose we're going to have to put up with the hybrid, not because it is a step in the right direction, but because it still needs fuel.

Bugger the shape of things to come - this is what I really want if truth be told :

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1982-FORD-CORTINA-CRUSADER-BLUE-Genuine-5432-miles_W0QQitemZ160395074894QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAutomobiles_UK?hash=item25584a9d4e

I had one of these when I was young - and I'd sell my soul to have this one if I had the facilities to look after it properly .

Perhaps the shape of things to come: Steorn Demo To Prove Overunity

It's peculiar, but either people have come to that last post, pressed the link, and don't understand what it entails, or people are simply not interested in potentially the greatest discovery since fire.

Well here's a development in the right direction:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8511319.stm

It's actually rather dynamic of the UK to put this in place. I suspect that it is all hot air [sorry] and that nothing will come of it, but you never know. Maybe we'll all be driving around in Honda Clarities and their successors in years to come.