A good read Tom. Let’s hope that a green car can be developed…and quickly…that can get us through our looming oil-crunch transport woes and minimise the associated economic and social stresses.

I can’t get a handle on which format is better; hybrid vehicles, all-electric or gas…or what?

We now have current articles/discussions on all three. But no one is comparing them. You advocate hybrids, Klaas Woldring pushes all-electric cars (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7588) and The Bull advocates gas (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1949).

How do we figure out which is best, or which combination is best, for a quick conversion on a massive scale and which will be considerably more affordable for the average person and heavy transport than petrol/diesel vehicles are now or are about to become?

Ludwig, all those car types could play a role, but this is the way
I read it. The hybrid (like the Prius) is quite a complex vehicle,
still petrol driven, with the main benefits in traffic etc.

LNG powered cars, yup it could be done, again with problems.

The plug-in is really the simplest and most versatile solution, IMHO.

Firstly they are relatively cheap and easy to build, with few working
parts. The big cost is the batteries, but that is being worked
on rapidly. As a back up, for longer journeys, they do have a small
petrol engine, which drives a generator to charge the batteries. But
most commuters on a daily basis, drive less then 200km. So in many
cases, it would hardly be used.

It makes sense to pipe that LNG to a power station and use it to
create elecricity, with which you then charge your batteries.
Plug-ins would let you have some solar cells, or a small wind turbine,
to do the charging for you, if you wish. They could also use power
that is now wasted as baseload power, in the middle of each night,
when consumption is lower then baseload production.

Next where I still see potential, is to take that CO2 from power
stations and convert it back into energy, via algae. They are such
simple lifeforms to grow and the figures that I have seen look
very impressive, but the important thing is they need CO2 to grow
and lots of it. So why not recycle the CO2 back into energy?
To me that makes far more sense, then spending huge amounts of
money to store it underground.

Thanks Yabby. That makes eminent sense, in line with Klaas Woldring’s article and comments from rstuart on a related thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1949#39990, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1949#39999.

But it prompts another question; if petrol (and diesel?) can be produced from LNG, coal and other plant material at a price that is competitive with current or near-future oil-fuel prices, which it apparently can, then wouldn’t it be better to do that?

If we did that, we could run the current transport infrastructure, whereas if we switched to all-electric, we'd have to completely turn over all cars and trucks… at a great resource cost I would imagine. Presumably also it would take considerably longer to implement on a nationwide scale. Just how significant these resource and time factors might be, I can’t envisage.

Unfortunately, the hybrid technology that Tom Gosling is espousing is not getting much of a look-in here.

Tom, what do you think about these options?

Ludwig, I don't think that the present infrastructure is going to
go away in a hurry, so petrol/diesel use will continue, especially
in trucking, farming, mining etc, where brute force is required.

As to oil/coal to liquids, I guess that is one that energy companies
have studied closely and it will depend on investment/risk/returns.
If it is worth it, they will do it.

At the moment they seem to all want to build LNG export terminals
in Gladstones, to export coal seam gas at global prices of about 15$
a unit, rather then sell it locally for 2-3$ a unit.

Where I see the plug-in winning is by sheer consumer driven demand
and you have to think globally here. Other countries have hydro power
or nuclear power, also ever cheaper solar and wind power, compared to
fossil energy.

Plug-ins are relatively cheap to produce. Tesla think that they will
have a sedan on the road for 30k$, in four years time. Add cheap
fuel up costs of 1c-2c a km and people will buy them bigtime, whereas
right now, GM/Chrysler etc are not far off going broke, due to slumping sales
of SUVs, trucks etc, where they used to make their
money.

GM plan to have the Volt on the market by 2010. Every car manufacturer
can see the writing on the wall and all are heading in the same
direction. Its just a question of time really. These things take
time and last year we still did nothing. This time, the oil price
spike is making everyone sit up and take notice, not just of
price, but also reliability of ME energy supplies.

I could buy a Telsa sports car tomorrow, buy some solar cells and
be free of worries about energy supply. All green technology too.
Reduce those costs and consumers will decide the winner.

When it comes to hybrid vehicles, consider this -

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188

It's a bit like those "power saving" light globes, that take more energy to manufacture than they actually save and then create vastly more environmental pollution when they are disposed of than their inefficient predecessors.

Just a feel-good exercise but at least it does create a new awareness.

Perhaps we should just find ways of driving less.

A very interesting link Wobbles.

So how do lithium-ion batteries or other technologies compare with the Prius nickel-containing batteries? What is the ‘dust-to-dust’ energy consumption equivalent of the soon-to-be-released Tesla Roadster and Chevy Volt?

If the Toyota Scion xB is really so much better than the Prius in its overall energy expenditure throughout its life, manufacture and decommissioning, then is the ultimate answer really to get right away from hybrids and electric cars and concentrate fairly and squarely on building the smallest and most efficient petrol-driven vehicles…and developing the gas-to-liquid and coal-to-liquid capabilities to provide the fuel?

Ludwig, I agree with Yabby the plugin electric car is the end game for
personal transport.
Batteries will become more efficient to some extent and as the batteries
are not intrinsic to the propulsion system they can be updated without
scrapping the car.
My ideal electric car would have a removable petrol charging unit.
If you intention was just to travel locally say 100km you do not have the
petrol generator loaded, but for longer trips the generator is placed
into the vehicle. This gives the advantage of longer range because of
weight saving for local journeys.

The Prius Hybrid while a commercial success is a technical failure because
it uses more fuel that some of the European diesels.

Ludwig.
The SBS program about “future cars” last night was very interesting more so for the issues that they ignored or only mentioned in passing offering no comment on how to combat them.
e.g. The public’s fascination with as Top Gear put it “POW-WER!” including torque, speed, and cool. (An ego extension).
The most contentious issues were those that centre around vested interests. Vehicles are in marketing terms “cash cow phase” they require little input and reluctant reticent to commit to less profitable (all be it short term) change. Business is about profit and community good is simply a marketing option.
The Rocky Mountains Research team built a carbon fibre composite car using other technology. It is faster, more efficient (less than 30% fuel consumption and 60% less pollution), lighter stronger, better designed (less parts easier to make and fix) and was simular size and aesthetics to current models. The mainstream manufactures claimed that carbon composite was too expensive (a logically dubious statement). What they really mean is that it would be as profitable.
The “Volt” only has a 20 mile battery charge 200 with fuel motor assistance. Yet other cars featured had much better efficiencies 40 Miles on electric and 600 with fuel assistance and much less pollution. “Volt’s” but release date is undetermined.
Logic would suggest that such models would simply out compete current investment and is a compromise option. Or was a claytons option.
Also there would fear of competition from smaller players and market dominance/market control i.e. profit guarantees.
From the workers perspective less car workers and associated industries jobs.
Oil companies also fear loss of control and/or cost of new infrastructure.
Consider those corporations whose profitable products are banned/controlled in one country simply seek more “unsophisticated” markets. e.g. Tobacco and chemicals.
Capitalism is only good if you’re on the winning side.
A change will need Govt authority but given Corporate influence of Governments and public manipulation through fear of the unknown. All this reminds me of the Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times”. What do you tink and/or propose?

Examinator,
The change will come, there will eventually be no other choice.
There is another factor that will worry the motor trade in particular.
The very much reduced need of servicing.
Instead of 10,000 to 15,000 km services you will be looking at 100,000km
services and that will mainly be for brakes.
By that time some battery cells may be failing but even that could be
an easy job for the owner provided the manufacturer does not build the
whole lot as a sealed pack.
I have seen a suggested arrangement where each cell is monitored
individually by a PIC and the number of the cell displayed.
Interesting motoring times ahead.

Tom, a small and perhaps petty point, but as one that was involved in the aXess project I must point out that the 'bureaucracy' fought to continue with the project. It was a purely political decision to cancel it. I feel that the influence of Detroit went way beyond ethical limits.

Why is it that our car companies don't seem able to pick up any of these technologies themselves, what happened to the team Holden put together?

Tom

From my post of 6 July:

“Unfortunately, the hybrid technology that Tom Gosling is espousing is not getting much of a look-in here.

Tom, what do you think about these options?”

I’d love to hear from you