Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

What's your favorite alternative fuel?

Apr 24, 2007 10:45AM PDT

What's your favorite alternative fuel, and why do you think it's the best? Does it offer a possible long-term replacement to gasoline? I've covered some current alternative fuels in my column, Your clean, green car choices.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Demand will drive down mfg. costs
Jul 6, 2007 12:24PM PDT

When Solar cells are in more demand, you will see companies vying for your dollars, and the prices will come down. Second, your tax dollars could not afford the R&D bills ofthe truly innovative automakers, because they spend more there than in their multi-billion dollar ad campaigns.

The reason locomotives use electric engines, is as I stated in several posts here, a matter of highest torque/horsepower in shortest time. The missing link has always been a way to store electric to feed those huge electric motors. Batteries would not work as they would add more weight than they would be worth. Newer solid state and possibly lower weight storage media and solar/(whatever) supplementing, could save much fuel.

The biggest obstacle is producing electricity with little or no waste. utilizing natural energies to provide the electric has been done before. Getting it to the masses is daunting because of the current "scientific belief system" that states that perpetual motion and over unity energy is a science fiction pipe dream.

- Collapse -
Oh I can't wait.
Jul 7, 2007 6:03AM PDT

So currently it takes 100 years for a solar panel to produce enough power to cover the cost of purchasing it, and yet it still won't because it loses 1% power production every year.... yet you think more companies vying for money will make a difference?

Oh let's make up some myths eh? Let's say they cut production costs in half. That's still 50 years to recoup costs! And it STILL won't because it loses 1% power production every year!

I have a theory that we'd be much better off as a nation if we would just open our eyes and learn from others around us, like Israel.

Here's a country with barely any natural resources, so the cost of energy is high enough to invest in alternate sources. They use solar power extensively. They get a lot of sun obviously, and they have solar heated water, solar heated houses, and solar generated electricity.

However, only through solar heated water which steam drives turbine generators. They use almost no photovoltaic cells at all. They are not cost effective, they produce little power, they are not commercially viable for mass energy generation.

Now why is it that the one nation on the face of the earth, that use more solar power than any other nation, finds solar panels to be an unwise investment, yet us Americans think it's a winner? As much as I hear people whine about Israel, maybe we should learn something from them instead of complaining.

The rest is fruit bat stuff, so I'm moving on. Later.

- Collapse -
Let's look at some numbers
Jul 2, 2007 2:48PM PDT

There is a reason no one is suggesting solar panels.

The CEC suggests that in real energy out put terms, a solar panel is about 67% of optimal power production. Let's take a look at a basic system. AEESolar has a home setup that starts out at 1360 Watt 8 panel setup. At 67% power, that means I'll get 915 Watts an hour. Now add in fixed angle, weather conditions, changing day light time and average it out. The number comes out to be about 1322 kWh a year. That averages out to about 3.621 kilowatt Hours a day.

Now according to the EPA, the Rav4 EV required 34 kWh to go 100 miles. Let's say you commute 50 miles to work a day. That is 17 kWh you need every day from your solar panel that is making 3.6 kWh... hmmm you can go 10.5 miles on 3.6 kWh.

Now wait, forget the EV, let's just look at the cost-benefit of the PV system alone. It's making a good 1322 kWh a year. That's good right? Let's check it. In my area the average is 8.5 Cents a kWh. That's saving me $112 a year from my yearly power bill. Great. What's the cost? $10,800 plus tax. Uh... hmmm... So saving $112 a year, it will pay for itself in... 96 and a half years. Maybe if I had bought before I left my mothers womb I would see the day when it paid for itself. I'd being a complete fool to do this.

Oh wait, that's the base model. Let's get the super deluxe package. At 7,140 watts, 67% base rate, 4.783 kWh, add in angle, weather and all the other factors, you get 19 kWh a day. That ends up being 6940 kWh yearly.

So cost-benefit again. 6940 kWh is roughly $589.90 a year. The cost? $49,300 not including tax. Way better! Now I only need to keep it for 84 years! If I live to be 113 years old, I will see the day it pays itself off..... or will I?

There is one last factor not in this calculation. Solar panels lose 1% of their efficiency yearly. I found that out just today. So every year, you will get less energy than the year before. Only 1%, but I wager it will require more than 100 years before one pays for itself.

Now different location have different weather and sun light angles. It is possible that someone could find solar panel to be cost-effective. For example San Diego CA has one of the highest energy cost, and highest sun light density. Let's check it out.

Again, 7,140 watt system at 67% is 4,783 Watt hours. So what's our daily power output? 25.4 kWh a day, which is 9274 kWh yearly! ooo! Not bad. That's a savings of $1159 a year at $0.12 per kWh. Again, at $49,300 not including tax, it would take 42.5 years to pay it off.

So what have we learned? We learned that in specific areas of the country, a home solar panel kit, can be cost effective over a very long period of time. But in other areas of the country, you'd have to be a complete and total brain dead idiot to invest in one. Sadly, most places in the US do not get enough sun light to make solar panels economical.

One thing I am totally against, is subsidizing from government. I know someone will chime in that it is very well worth while when government foots 85% of the bill. This is wrong, it's immoral, it's totalitarian. You are going to tax everyone else into poverty, so that rich people who have money can buy a $50,000 dollar solar kit that cost more than some peoples homes. This is wrong. I just read where a rich guy bought a $60,000 dollar solar panel kit with a government subsidy. He paid only $12,000 of the kit. Who paid the rest? Us minimum wage workers. Further, he gets $3,000 yearly in "renewable energy credits". Where do you think that money comes from? You and me pal. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and everyone praises government for supporting renewable energy! You want to save money on electricity by getting solar panels? Great, I'm all for it, but... YOU PAY FOR YOUR OWN ****** PANELS! You blasted liberal government supporting fluff tards, I have a hard enough time as it is making only $20K a year just have you idiots take my money in taxes and give it to some yuppy rich guy so he doesn't have to pay full price on a solar panel so he can get "renewable energy credits" and pay even less on the power he uses. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr....

- Collapse -
night time
May 6, 2007 10:10AM PDT

With all of the cars plugged in at nighttime, there will not be a surplus, usage will about the same as during the day prime usage rates, and therefore the prices for supply will be about the same. I am quite sure that all the cars on the road during the day, use the same amount of power as industry running at full tilt, we just pay for it differently and donot equate the costs the same because of it.

Other than a solar source, there is no such thing as a cheap fuel. If your are looking for a cheaper form of transportation, buy a bike, and power it by the biofuel you produce by eating. This also costs, but if you want to live, you are going to eat and have to buy food.

- Collapse -
Plug-In Electric Cars
May 11, 2007 5:55AM PDT

Here is a little something that I have reprinted without permission, but it makes the point:

Facts About Plug-in Vehicles

Battery Electric Vehicles (EVs) are by far the most efficient vehicles in the world.

According to the Department of Energy, enough excess generating capacity exists at night in the U.S. to charge 180 million EVs without adding any new capacity.

All of our electricity is domestic except for a small percentage from Canada.

Most Americans waste more electricity in their homes than they would use to drive their cars.

We will never fight a war over electricity.

Driving on electricity from the U.S. grid is far cleaner than driving on oil.

A survey of EV owners found that 48% of them used solar energy to power their houses and cars.

EVs by the millions could be built today.

Plug-in cars capable of 50 miles per day would meet the needs of 80% of the American driving public. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation


Any questions?

Fred

- Collapse -
Ah yes, I have a few questions
Jul 2, 2007 11:55AM PDT

I noticed you gave no real information backing the claim that EVs where the most efficient vehicles in the world. Do you have any?

Yes electricity is generated domestically, however the fuel we use to generate that electricity is not all domestic. We import some coal and some petrol, both used to make electricity. Question: do you suppose that by doubling our energy demand, with EVs, would increase imported fuel to generate electricity?

According to the EPA site, the Rav4 EV required 34 kWhrs to go 100 miles. I normally drive 55 miles every day, and sometimes many more. Someone said that battery charging is 85% efficient. Based on that, I'd need 20 kWhrs every day to keep my EV charged. Currently, based on my electric bill, I use an average of 14 kWhrs a day. Question: what do you consider "waste"?

It could be argued that we have not fought any war over any energy source yet. Question: Given there's a whole group of people who believe it is their religious duty to force everyone to obey their system of beliefs, is it possible we will fight wars regardless of what fuel we use in our automobiles?

Given that electricity is generated by coal, petrol and natural gas in many cases, based on what evidence do you make this claim?

How many EV owners were in the survey? How many EV owners are there in the US? In which country were the ones that used solar power? Did they get subsidies from the government from tax money taken from poorer working people?

EVs by the millions could be built, but what if in the land of freedom companies choose not to make them? What if 80% of Americans do not want an EV? Will you support totalitarianism to force people to buy them?

Thanks. Please answer these directly.

- Collapse -
Well then I do have an answer
Jul 2, 2007 1:00PM PDT

You want "real" information or do you want to tell me what you read about in an EPA web post? Let's start with the Phoenix Motorcars which has the following:

Production Vehicle Preliminary Specifications
Dimensions & Weights

Overall Length:
194 inches / 4,935 mm

Overall Width:
73 inches / 1,864 mm

Overall Height:
69 inches / 1,760 mm

Wheelbase:
108 inches / 2,755 mm

Gross Vehicle Weight:
4,800 lbs. / 2,182 kg

Curb Vehicle Weight:
3,800 lbs. / 1,727 kg

Payload:
1,000 lbs. / 484 kg




Chassis
Front Suspension: Independent torsion bar and double wishbone
Front Brakes: Ventilated disc
Rear Suspension: Rigid axle and 5-link coil springs
Rear Brakes: Disc
Steering: Rack & pinion

Drivetrain
Motor Manufacturer: UQM Technologies
HP Rating: 120
Power Rating: 100KW peak/55KW continuous
Torque Rating: 550Nm peak/300Nm continuous
Controller Thermal Management: Liquid cooling
Controller Output: 90KW
Regenerative Braking: Programmable
On-Vehicle Charging System: UQM Technologies
On-Vehicle Charging System: OEM 6.6KW

Battery Pack
Battery Type (Power Rating): NanoSafe? Lithium Titanate (35 KWh)
Battery Management System: Altair Nanotechnology Integrated BMU

Performance
0-60 m.p.h.: Under 10 seconds
Factory Set Top Speed: 95 m.p.h.
Theoretical Top Speed: 120 m.p.h.
Braking: 60 to 0 m.p.h. in an estimated 150 feet

Range
Urban (UDDS): 100+ miles per charge
Highway (HFEDS): 100+ miles per charge

Charging Time
On-Board Vehicle 6.6KW Charger: 5 to 6 hours
Off-Board High Power 250KW Charger: Under 10 min. to 95% SOC

Now, instead of writing all of these EPA or industry bull puckey, do the research and you will soon discover for yourself, that it DOES NOT TAKE ANY FOSSIL FUEL TO GET ELECTRICITY. That is a myth, it designed to make money for those that can sell electric. Electric is always there and available 24/7, rain or shine, night or day. Why isn't anyone selling devices? Most that I know that have tried are dead.

Solar cells today are much less expensive and much more efficient. There is a company that wants to install the panels and allof the interconnection hardware for free. They will then sell you electric that is cheaper than what you are currently paying, but they get to sell the excess back to the local utility. They make money, you still pay. California was installing solar powered EV recharging stations on major highways when the Californiia Air Resource Board (CARB) pulled the zero pollution mandate. Under pressure from big oil, the auto companies lobby got CARB to back off the "impossible dream" of zero emmissions.

All of the current "EV's" and hybrid vehicles are grossly under-powered and inefficient. The only truly remarkable new technology out there is the Tesla Roadster, at about $108,00 nicely equipped. But there are no solar cells. That would be the first addition I would make. To see some of the specs, read one of my earlier posts or surf on over to their site and see for yourself. I would suspect that Toyota will do as every other car maker has done, and give us as little mileage improvement to keep them selling lots of car.


I don't give a second thought to what anyone else thinks, but I respect the rights of all to make their own choices in life. It is when those choices infringe upon the rights of others to livce as they choose that I get my feathers ruffled. (And you just hiit a nerve.)

I am a Libertarian. I don't like the government meddliing in the affairs of Americans at all. I don't like people using people like they would horses and oxen. And especially, I don't like being lied to. Perhaps you believe the lies, and except them as gospel, but I have "seen the light" with my own eyes, and you canot deceieve me with statistics.

We can live in an world of free energy and great health, if it were not for those that make trillions off of the suffering of the masses. You want to know why the electric car died? Follow the money. You want to know why free energy is not a reality? Follow the money. You want to know why we have chemicals in foods that are causing genetic defects, diabetes, autism, ADDS, etc.? Follow the moeny. For over 50 years I have, and all that we have is all that "they" want us to have. Who are "they"? Simple. FOLLOW THE MONEY!

- Collapse -
I guess I should have specified "relevant" answers.
Jul 3, 2007 1:50PM PDT

However, I did find this information interesting. The point I was making was everyone makes the pie in the sky claim that EVs are the most efficient vehicles on the planet. That's great... and I could believe it, but I want something more than someone said so. I could say Pig is the best meat any human could ever eat. Unless I back that up with some facts or *something*, it's just my word on it. (pig is horrible in my opinion)

I specifically was looking for information related to every type of automobile and how it's efficiency relates to EVs. The other information is neato, but not really what I was looking for.

I am not sure of what you mean when you say "it does not take any fossil fuel to get electricity". Because according to the government, currently we do use "fossil fuel to get electricity".

If you are simply saying we *could* use other sources, fine. However as things stand, the amount of electricity being generated by non-fossil fuel sources is way too little. Solar, Wind, Geo-thermal, and hydro-power simply does not generate enough to cover current energy demands. Not only that but the same eco-nut groups that demand we not use "fossil fuels" also is attacking Wind-generation as killing birds, attacking Hydro-power dams as killing fish, and I've heard they are after Geo-thermal sites now. So 3 of the 4 supposedly "green" alternative energy systems is under attack. This leaves just nuclear which of course the liberals will never let us use that. So what source do you think we should use?

Of course Solar! Right. Granted solar panels have gotten cheaper. I'm not sure what you meant when you said "Why isn't anyone selling devices? Most that I know that have tried are dead." but Sunwize is selling home solar panel kits now. Unless you meant the so-called "free energy devices" which are frauds. Yeah their dead because after then sell you their snake oil, the fake their death and flee the country.

Anyway, I'm going to run some numbers again, which I did elsewhere. I won't go into detail this time because I wrote a whole essay on it yesterday and don't feel like doing a college level report twice in a week.

We'll look at a base package Sunwize GTS kit. This is 6 panel kit with inverter and grid tie in. You do all the wiring yourself, so either you like handling 120 volts wires, or you hire an electrician, or you pay extra for it to be pre-wired or on-site wired.

The 6 Sharp 175 Watt panels give us a factory Wattage rating of 1.05 kWatts. Not bad. Problem is there are a dozen or so factors that reduce power output:

PV module nameplate DC rating - Solar panels never put out as much in the real world as they do in perfect factor conditions. Plus a solar panel lose 2% of it's optimal power in the first two hours of direct sunlight as well as reductions by heat caused by... being in sunlight. Go figure.

Inverter and Transformer - No transformer or inverter is 100% efficient.

Mismatch - No two solar panels are perfectly alike, thus when connected together, they reduce energy production collectively.

Diodes and connections, DC wiring, AC wiring - Wiring on the DC side, and AC side, as well as diode protection circuits all have small resistance, thus lowering production.

Soiling - Dust, leaves and all such dirt.

Finely, your location relative to the equator and local weather conditions will have a huge effect.

So back to the numbers. A 1050 Watt system in my area (Ohio) will generate on average, roughly 1,181 kilo Watt hours in a year. That's not bad right? Over a thousand kWh is a bunch right? Let's see. The going rate for a kWh in Ohio is 8.5 cents, that's $100.39 I saved yearly. Hrm... a 6 panel 1050 Watt SunWize GTS home kit is... drum roll please... $11,200 not including tax. I would need to keep the system for 112 years to pay it off with money saved.

But what's worse is PV cells lose 1% efficiency every year. So in 10 years it would only put out 1053 kWh ($89.50) In 20 years 932 kWh ($79.22) In 30 years 805 kWh ($68.42).

Of course all these numbers assume it's at optimal tilt (I don't know what the angle of my roof is) and that nothing is shading it like the trees in my back and front yard which would block the sunlight for some of the day.

Maybe I just need to get a larger system.
SunWize GTS Packages with 35 Sanyo 190 Watt panels.
Factory Wattage 6650 Watts.
Real world output yearly 7478 kWh
Yearly power savings $635.63
Cost of the complete package (DIY wiring) $59,100
Years of ownership to break even 93 years
(not including yearly 1% loss of efficiency)

I hope your getting the idea this is a farce.

You are a fruit cake. Free energy has been disproved so many times, it's a joke. Didn't you have basic physics in school, or was that the 60s and you were stoned? Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. A wise man once told me "believe only 1/4 of what you hear, and only 1/2 of what you see". You saw what with your own eyes? Snake oil? I pill of eternal youth? A free energy device that can power the world requiring no fuel? Garbage. This is a bad as that cheezy 100-mpg carb that could make a 60s 350 cid V8 get better mileage than a Prius. Come on, lay off the pipe old man.

It's funny, I like the Libertarian platform, but every time a meet a real libertarian, they are either stoned, high, or just completely insane. If I could take the drugs out of Libertarian platform, and send all the fruit bats to the asylum, I'd join it.

- Collapse -
Because the Bilble Says So
Jul 10, 2007 12:11AM PDT

All of your personal attacks aside, and the fact is you have no facts. You talk about fruit bat, it seems that you and your leaders are a dangerous bunch in humanity.

All that information you have regarding solar electric is haype and farce. You have no idea of what real technology is, only the narrow-minded analysis of special interest that stand to lose the most if electric is allowed to power transportation. (I'll bet you still think the Great Pyramid ws built as a tomb)

So far you have attacked me personally for having a different perspective that the conservative christian right. But truth is, you don't have anything construction to offer, so you attack my politics and all of the hundreds of hours of research I have done to seperate truth from fiction.

Yes, you are much more intelligent that physicists like Puthoff, Pons, Mallove, Brown, Tesla, Moray, etc. Sure, if Tesla could send electricity wirelessly, from the natural occuring energy that powers the universe, he would have received millions in investments.

You sir are naive if you believe that if it was true then we would have it. You sir are as close to a fanatic as I dare venture, as you still think it was God or Darwin. Neither is truth, but since one suggests science it is accepted by all don't buy creationism. Intelligent design does not mean creationism either, so let's not start down a path that is totally out of context here.

Point is, you are part of the problem nit the solution. You attack me as a drug crazed, fruit cake that watches too much America Idol.
Aside from the fact that I never watched the show, I do ocassionaly watch Jeopardy and the news, I do like shows on HIstory, Discovery, and yes the SCi-Fi channel. You spew the "facts" that you read in an analysis, by a group that is paid by the power and oil industries. And don't tell me its a government report, or an "independent" scientific review. That's as much of a **** and bull story as the tooth fairy.

It would serve you and human kind good if you did your own research and discovered the truth, instead of listening to Rush and believing he is the path to enlighenment. And I don''t need your approval to enjoy my life, nor do I care what you think. It's just that since this discussion is about alternative fuels. and since the moderator has yet to step in and edit the rhetoric and slander, I feel it is in the best interests off the participants here to suggest to you what to do with your personal attacks.

- Collapse -
Now I know you're fruity
Jul 10, 2007 10:05AM PDT

First you make a claim. Then I ask for some evidence. Now you say "fact is you have no facts". Um... excuse me, which one of us is trying to make a claim? Oh I am... right. When did I make what claim? And where did the Bible or whatever get involved? Are you schizophrenic?

And as far as my information about solar power, it's based on Sharp Corporation's documentation on their solar panel products (model ND-208U1F), the National Center for Photovoltaics, which is managed by the Department of Energy, Solar Home a national seller of home solar panel kits, the California Energy Commission, and more than a few other sources.

Of course I wager you'll say their all under the control of Big Oil, or they are Bible thumpers or something (I still don't know how religion got in this at all), and they all listen to some right-wing radio program and thus are all wrong, all of them! You sound more crazy by the second.

Personally, I have no idea what the "conservative Christian right" believes. Nor would I know if your views are similar or not. All I know right now is, you sound very very fruity.

I'm a fanatic? Can you look at this post from my perspective? You just made the logical leap from a topic on solar panels, energy sources, and future fuels, to Darwin/God/Creationism/Intelligent design. You sound NUTS!

Funny I think at this point I'd suggest you start listening to Rush. Although I don't listen to him, I think he has got to be a better source for information than whatever you are into. You came across completely insane in this post. Seemingly random, un-related, irrelevant and slightly fanatical responses. You must have been beaten by a right-wing nut once, and you've been scared for life ever since.

- Collapse -
What facts?
Jul 10, 2007 2:14PM PDT

What do you really want? Seems you just like to pick a fight. SO here is a fact: You sir are a narrow minded conservative idiot that allows others to make truths for them.

You can tell me all the lies you read as facts and I will still syas that the truths are there if you are willing to see them. If you are going to refuse to look and instead bury your head in the sand of dogma, so be it. I will not waste any more of my time in offering alternatives to you, who don't want an alternative you just want to prove how wrong us "fruit bats" are, using the same lies that keep the drug lords in power and real cures illegal.

- Collapse -
Can't see the forest through the trees
May 4, 2007 5:56AM PDT

If Toyota gaurantees their NIMH cells for ten years, and then recycles the old, how is that a "poor position" to be in? And regarding elctric, there are in place throughout the US, dams, nuclear generators, coal fired generation plants, and the "put in place" distribution system is there, it's called "the power grid" and it has worked just fine for over 100 years.

All of the "alternative fuels" you folks are talking about, are still burned, and there is exhaust gases produced, PERIOD. Whether it is NO2, CO, or steam, it is still an exhaust into the air we breathe.

Electric provides clean energy. The problem is other than solar, wind, and hydroelectric generators, there is something being exhausted into the atmosphere. Even the current reactors require huge amounts of water to cool them, and there is still an amount of steam that is belched into our air.

This whole debate really comes down to economics. Those that sold horses were in the same predicament as petroleum dealers are today, when Henry rolled out the Model A and the Model T.

Ever stand behind a bus (biodiesel even) in the hot summer? Even without pollution, the heat is stifling, and instead of it being used to make the bus use fuel more efficiently, it's just exhausted into the 90 degree city air, and if the hot asphalt and concrete did not make it nearly unbearable.

Electricity is the way. When GM leased the EV1, California had begun to put recharging stations along highways. But when the C.A.R.B. changed its mandate (under lobby pressure from fuel cell/hydrgen investors) they came and removed all the cars and destroyed them. Why? Because they worked too well, even for the "primitive" technology of the mid-90's.

There were vehicles (ICE) that were reaching nearly 50mpg in the 1970's, and automakers promised they could double that in ten years. And here we are over 30 years later and 40 miles per gallon is available but only if you have a Geo Metro 3 cylinder auto with manual transmission and the AC shut off. Yeah right, try driving across Nevada with your windows up for aerodynamics, and no AC.

The major problem with hybrid vehicles is the electric motor in them. They are not the highest torque/horsepower units and they are only used for low speed driving. AT 40-45MPH, the ICE kicks in and starts burning fuel at maybe 26-30mpg. The average of 60-70mpg is factored in with the use of the electric motor in local driving. The again, Tesla Motors has a 70lb. elctric drive motor that quite possibly is putting out about 500HP! To get that vehicle to 60MPH in about 4 seconds, and a range of about 200 miles between charges, I would guess that the addition of solar cells can increase the 200 mile range to say maybe 300? And that is without stopping to charge.
A small induction generator that uses the axle rotation to charge the batteries may extend that 300 mile range to 500.

Now I would imagine that with hyper-capacitance devices that will eventually replace wet-cell, chemical batteries, that will greatly increase the range and reduce the amount of time to full charge. Possibly, you will have a charged up system in about the same time it currently takes to fill up with petrol.

So far we have not produced any emissions, used any fuels to generate electricity (unless the service station gets power from fuels),and had our vehicle charged up and ready to go in the time it took to go to the restroom and buy some snacks and drinks at the convenience store.

Any questions?

Fred Mars
Corvallis, OR

- Collapse -
No questions, just answers
May 6, 2007 12:21PM PDT

I agreed with your first 7 paragraphs, but then you blew it on #8.

I drive a hybrid, and it uses the two motor/generators whenever it is moving, even when the Atkinson/Miller IC engine is running. On long trips at freeway speeds, I typically get 45 to 52 mpg. Yes, the petrol engine can be getting 45 mpg at 70 mph.

The Tesla Roadster has awsome acceleration, but its little electric motor is only 250 hp. Low weight helps. Tesla Motors has already considered adding solar cells to the car, but found they would only add 1 or 2 miles of driving range per day. Not worth the cost. For maximum power production from expensive solar cells it is better to mount them on a building roof, facing the sun, where they won't be shaded during the day.

The Tesla Roadster already has an "induction generator" - the motor is used as a generator for Regenerative Braking. It would do no good to attach another generator to the axle, it would be like having the brakes on all the time, and would reduce, not increase, the driving range.

"Hypercapacitors" would be great, but they don't currently exist. The best ultra-capacitors now available store less energy per kg than standard lead acid batteries.

- Collapse -
Hyper-Capacitors
May 9, 2007 4:17AM PDT

Currently manufactured technology is NOT state-of-the-art. As for the axle mounted magnetically inducted generator that I writing about would not add significant weight or drag to the vehicle. Regenerative braking, doesn't that capture heat and convert to electricty? As for the only 1 or 2 miles to be gained by adding solar cells to the vehicle, again I must inssist that is not accurate as solar technology has advanced and I have seen such light weight and flexible cells that can be mounted within the body of a vehicle.
Does your hybrid have a 250hp motor? I have a V6 that is only about 230hp but gets only 26mpg. Toyota sys the gas engine is 76HP and the electric is only 67HP. That Tesla motor would make your hybrid run like a racer!

- Collapse -
Regenerative braking - cool, not hot
May 11, 2007 11:12AM PDT

I'm afraid you've way underestimated the effort needed to spin a working generator, and misunderstood the way regenerative braking works.

Regular brakes use friction to convert mechanical energy (the motion of the vehicle) into heat, which is dissapated into the air, wasted. If regular brakes are applied too long, they can overheat and fail, with potentially disasterous results.

Regenerative braking uses a generator to convert mechanical energy directly to electrical energy at an efficiency over 92%.

Converting mechanical energy into heat and then converting that heat into electricity would be grossly wasteful, arount 10% efficiency, and would be just as subject to failure as regular brakes. It just isn't done that way.

As I said, the engineers at Tesla Motors looked at putting solar cells on the car, and concluded it was not practical, given the high cost of solar cells today. It was the high price, not the weight! Now, if the price was to drop from the current $3 to $4 per watt to $0.80 or less per watt, then the modest gain in miles could be worth a more modest cost.

- Collapse -
Huh?
May 25, 2007 2:24PM PDT

What part of induction pits addition friction (drag) on the rotation of the axle? What powers the generator is regenerative braking? The problem is not an issue of energy, it is an issue of using the proper device for the efficiency. An electric motor that is powered via magnetic induction and capacitive discharge, can actually generate more energy than it consumes (See US Pataent 3,890,548 Edwin Gray's Pulsed Capacitor Discharge Electric Engine) which would effectively make this whole topic moot.

Please don'r use that rhetoric of what is possible because I KNOW that we can get off the use of burning fuels altogether. And Tesla Motors is negotiating with a Texas company that designed "Ultra-capacitors" that thye claim holds more energy per cell than Lithium Ion and is completely solid state, requiring only minutes instead of hours to recharge.

The GM EV1 was a smashing success that was killed by the oil/hydrogen fuel lobby in the state of California. No, I didn't get that all from "who Killed The Electric Car" but I do remember that it was mentioned at the end of the movie.

So long as people believe the propaganda of the incumbent industries, we will remain slaves to it. Wake up and smell the crude, and stop believing that it smells like roses.

- Collapse -
I do not understand this.
Jul 3, 2007 2:25PM PDT

Crack pots are everywhere today it seems.

Alright, I'll bite. If a free energy device can be built, and you have the patent number, and clearly there's a number of these schematics out there, them make one and show it working.

That dude has a website with his "free energy" device on it. Tell him to release his specs so we can make one of our own. You all claim the reason these are not on the market is because of money. Big (whatever the least theory is) has prevent them from coming to market. Great, you have a chance to prove your here for the good of the human race... release all your specs so we can make one of our own and when we do, we'll demand it be allowed on the market.

Otherwise it's all a shell game, a snake oil fraud, or you are just as greedy to refuse to release your documentation. I'm betting the former.

There are way too many well learned scientist all over the world to claim that XXX company here in the US has prevented all free-energy machines world wide from coming to market. And especially since there are at least a dozen or so nations whose governments would jump on a free energy device to make money on it. With Russia's screwed up economy, they'd love to find a free energy system they could use to pull their sorry country out of the gutter and at the same time screw up the global economy for everyone else.

You think Iran wouldn't use a free energy device if it could? You bet they would. It would tilt the whole middle east over in their favor. This is whole thing is a joke. You all should put up, or give up. There thousands of you guys, start building these things and send them everywhere, or give up on trying to overthrow the laws of thermal dynamics.

- Collapse -
The "Laws" of Thermdynamics
Jul 4, 2007 4:38AM PDT

Which LAws are you referring to? Moray, Tesla, and now Bearden and Berdini have demonstrated devices that our powered by the aether energy that is is always on. Fleishmann and Pons demonstrated cold fusion. Farnsworth built a "fusor" device that produced over-unity gain back in the 1950's. These devices are NOT fantasy or science fiction, they use the energy that is always there.

The Earth is a dynamo that produces vast amounts of electrical energy via its magnetic fields. A resonant circuit is used to utilize that energy. Problem is, once devices are built, there is no more wires and monthly bills. Tesla demonstrated this to Westinghouse,but old george needed J. P. Morgan's financial support which was denied. MOgan though that Tesla would but General Electric out of business by offering free electricity. He told Tesla that he was in the business of selling power not "antennae" so that is why the technology has not been developed.

Also, the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office REFUSES to grant a patent for a device that "claims" perpetual motion or more output that input. Theyt feel that science has not accepted such claims, therefore it cannot exsist. Yes, snake oil is what they say, and yet these devices exsist.

My friend Bill tried to patent a device that has been recently discussed here regarding H2 on demand, yet the US government says that it cannot be used because it is a explosion hazard. Bill's device did use a small tank (one liter) to provide H2 for starting, and maybe it was that tank that was dangerous.

The 200 MPG carburetor was built but it too is a dangerous device because it vaporizes the fuel before entering the intake manifold and that can cause an explosion. Today with fuel injection, there is a modification that can be made using a vortex action that will vaporize the fuel as it eneters the combustion chamber, thereby eliminating the explosion danger. This will yield that 200 MPG, but as I was told by a Ford engineer, I won't see it on a Ford in my lifetime. Why? Why not make a vehicle that can get such great mileage? Honda is currently selling a Civic that it claims gets over 50 MPG highway, yet the American Automakers say it is not reasonable for Congress to mandate 35 MPG over the next ten years, because they could not produce such an engine with "current" technology.

You tell me about "laws" of thermodynamics, that have nothing to do with the reality of energy. If the Big Bang theory is true, from that moment on, the Universe began to die, the energy decaying at a steady rate, yet measurements indicate no such decay.

Paul Brown created a reactor that used "spent" fuel and produced electric. NASA uses K40 (a radioactive potassium) for betteries that last tens of years. What is powering the Spirit and Opportunity rovers on Mars? Solar? H2? Biodiesel? I doubt any "fuel" woiuld have lasted this long.

There is a device in Switzerland that has been producing electric power for a small Christain community now for about 25 years. Why doesn't others do the same? I DON"T KNOW! Why do we drive on a parkway and park on the driveway?

Myths aside, real science does not mean that those that came before us figured it all out and we are left with the fruits of their labors. New discoveries are made daily. Just as the auto was slow to replace the horse, and the computer gradually was accepted by business, so it is with "new" energy technology. Tesla demonstrated the "power" of the cosmos. He and others discovered subtle ways (as nature uses) to coax the "cosmos" to give up electrons. They are always there, he just provided a means for them to flow.

Perhaps the discovery of fire was not the greatest achievement, rather the biggest mistake. It provides a very inefficient method of provided energy, heat or light. There are many theories that have been postulated by many smart men and women over the centruries, but like history, the textbooks are written by the victors, not necessarily those that are correct.

The Earth vibrates at a known frequency. A quartz crystal that is cut and mounted to resonate with the Earth will produce a small electric current. A coil wrapped around a ferrous core nmagnet will also produce current flow. These are facts of physics, not fiction or snake oil.

Natural forces begin as nudges, subtle changes that build tremedous forces such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and lightning storms. We use brute force to coerce nature instead of using the subtle methods demonstrated by nature itself.

Just as it was known that the world was flat, so it is with "known" science, that you cannot get more output than input, and with losses due to a variety of "physics laws" output MUST be less than input. Yet we do have experiements that have demonstrated an over unity gain, and these experiemnts have been repeated.

Just because we don't know how, does not negate the possibility of tapping into the Sea of Energy (Henry T. Moray) that is all around us and in between every atom of matter.

Electric is the only form of energy that does not require the destruction of something to gain utility power. You don't have to burn, pollute, sweat, or get someone else to sweat for you. All that is required is thinking outside the "norm" or accepted belief system in place.

- Collapse -
h2 is great for volcanic nations
May 2, 2007 10:13PM PDT

like Iceland. All the geothermal power you could ever want. So for them, h2 production is carbon-neutral, and then some.

For us, it's a little more complicated. Hopefully in the last 25 years they've improved the technology for nuclear power plants.

- Collapse -
Geothermal Electric Island?
May 11, 2007 11:38AM PDT

Geothermal power and hydropower cannot produce H2 directly but can produce electricity directly. The combined efficiency of water electrolysis and fuel cell and compression of H2 fuel for storage is less thatn 24%, but the combined efficiency of charger and battery is 85%. Advanced batteries can drive an electic all the way around Iceland nonstop with charge left over. Electric cars give better performance than H2 fuel cell cars. H2 fuel cell cars cost several times more than the most expensive electric cars...

Why would the people of Iceland choose the more expensive more wasteful poorer performing H2 "solution"?

Ah, but the oil companies want to sell this profitable new H2 fuel...

- Collapse -
H_Y_D_R_O_G_E_N
May 3, 2007 12:13PM PDT

you are entirely correct but your forgot something that is very important and has been tested many times but still can't seem to be Eradicated. The, i would say, biggest problem with H2 is the blowing up factor. hydrogen is a very explosive elemnt and when crammed into a car and under extreme pressure it has the potential to make a big boom if you were to be hit. To be honest if there were no more car crashes then this wouldnt be such a big problem but there i always some moron who drives wrecklessly on the road and pays for it by losing his car when it crashes or someone who just had bad luck that day and got rearended. if you were one of those people there would be no way that you could walk out of any of those accidents with minor bruises, scrapes and cuts, you would be blown SKY HIGH, other than the cost of making hydrogen and the factor that i just wrote, the way that Hydrogen is supposed to burn sounds great for the enviornment and if we could rule out both factors I'm sure a lot of people would by it, look how decent the hybrid cars did. there is atleast four hybrid cars on a road, people just enjoy them.
..::MIKE::..

- Collapse -
FORGET THE Batteries!
Jun 25, 2007 1:03AM PDT

No need for batteries or high pressure tanks. There is a new alternative being developed. It is real, and soon will be running a pickup truck - stay tuned.

If interested in what's happening, check out this site:

http://cscinventorsclub.blogspot.com

- Collapse -
c-o-u-l-d-b-e-c-o-m-e-a-n-e-w-p-r-o-b-l-e-m
May 2, 2007 6:07PM PDT

Hydrogen can became very nasty, if used massively in cars and similar vehicles.

The problem is that it will partially leak (no way to avoid it in a massive fleet of privately owned cars), get in the atmosphere and contaminate in new an dangerous ways. A little known problem, I am afraid, but very important and that concerns the whole concept of an Hydrogen-based society.

- Collapse -
Hydrogen for cars
May 2, 2007 6:35PM PDT

Hydrogen is not a good lead for cars.
A 2.0 Liter engine would produce only 85 Horse Power (50% of diesel/Gazoline engines).
Storage and distribution would be extremely delicate. This gaz would have to be cooled at -253

- Collapse -
The infrastructure to distribute Hydrogen is a MAJOR barrier
May 2, 2007 11:18PM PDT

H2 has one great characteristic, its totally non-poluting in consumption. Otherwise as a fuel, it is a really poor choice, for a long list of reasons, including the fact that producing it consumes polluting fuels in huge volumes. Further, no one has figured out how to distribute the stuff.

While hybrids are far from perfect, your "auto industry insider" clearly has an ax to grind...perhaps works in a major (looser) Detroit auto company???

- Collapse -
Alternate fuel
May 3, 2007 12:10AM PDT

I to agree that Hydrogen is the fuel to use but in the form of a hydrogen fuel cell and totally electric DC cars. Why they the manufactures could put 4 pancake motors on each wheel and we would have full time 4 wheel drive. All of the electronics could go into the chassis so the consumer could change out the body type to anything he or she would like. If you want a pickup truck just bolt it onto the chassis, if you want a 4 door car just bolt on to the chassis. I am an electronics technician and I can tell you that we have drives DC drives that are very small and can drive 400 hp DC motors so we have the electronics and we have the fuel cells all we have to do is get the oil company lobbyists out of Washington and we can have what we need. You know what the by products of the hydrogen fuel cell is? oxygen and water.

- Collapse -
oxygen?
May 6, 2007 10:20AM PDT

Byproduct is water, not oxygen, it burns oxygen, creating a chemical process that binds the two products together to make water, hence H2O. 2 parts hygdrgen, 1 part oxygen

- Collapse -
General Motors
May 3, 2007 12:30AM PDT

GM have a prototype. I don't know what it's called. There is no engine, everything is in an 11inch deep 'body', so the CEG is low, giving more stability. What's more, it produces water as the exhaust, and some 80 or 90KW of energy from the hydrogen cells. Inside its really roomy, and there are no pedals or anything. The steerring has two levers on each side, which you rotate for accelleration, kind of a motorcycle, but vertical instead of horizontal and in both hands at once. To break you squeeze. I really liked it. It will be great for us, the playstation generation, cause it's really like playing. The windshield is so large its "like driving a patio". I saw it on you tube, by top gear. You can search fo it too.

- Collapse -
General Motors H2 Concept
May 3, 2007 4:27PM PDT

Yes, it is either a fuel cell or hydrigen fuel concept vehicle. With the new battery technology, the EV cars GM had in the 1990's (but since destroyed) was not a bad vehicle, but the C.A.R.B. (CAlifornia Air Resource Board) which initially madated zero emissions, rescinded their demands and the electric car was pronounced dead.

How about a magnetic motor? Based on the Wimhurst design it could theoretically run forever without fuel.

Fred Mars
Corvallis, OR

- Collapse -
hydrogen?
May 3, 2007 3:05AM PDT

Hydrogen has such a mythical aura to it, but in the context of energy, it's just another fuel. Actually, it's more of any energy storage medium than a basic fuel. That's because hydrogen doesn't occur naturally on earth and can only be produced by consuming another form of energy. There is so much talk about "the hydrogen economy" and the notion that hydrogen will rescue us from our dependence on petroleum. Sadly, politicians who promote hydrogen as the energy panacea neither understand science nor respect those who do. Since it takes just as much energy to produce hydrogen from water as is released when that hydrogen burns back into water, hydrogen alone won't save us from the Algore world of tomorrow.

There are only a few true sources for useable energy: solar energy (which includes wind power, hydropower, and biomass), fossil fuels (which include petroleum and coal), and nuclear fuels. Hydrogen is not among them; it can be produced only at the expense of one of the others. Even ethanol, which is touted as an environmentally sound replacement for petroleum, has its problems; producing a gallon of ethanol can all too easily consume a gallon of petroleum, all things considered.