FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Cars that won't pollute





pll
Do you think that someday we'll see some cars that don't pollute ?
Or a new transportation method that will have 0 effects on the Earth ?

I know that people are working on the electric car Cool and it seems to be wonderful, but it will still pollute because one day or another we will need to get rid of the batteries (which will pollute a lot too)...

But do you think one day we will be able to see a car that's hot 0 pollution for rolling from a A point to a B point? Question
Nemesis234
yes, ofcourse.

i bet current electric cars dont "pollute" in your sense of the word, its just that its too expensive to recycle every part. normal batteries are commonly sent to asia for recycling, tyres are chopped up and used for other things, glass and metal are easily recyclable.
jwellsy
Where the heck do you think the electricity comes from to charge the batteries?
SonLight
As a general philosophical question, the answer has to be, "no, of course not", because all human activities have some negative impact upon the Earth. Eventually we will probably be using wind, sun, and hydrogen in some form, which will lead to very low pollution. I would consider battery recycling to be very small-impact compared to other considerations, even today. Of course that too will likely be reduced (but never eliminated) as a source of pollution.

By the time we are doing all these wonderful things to move ourselves around with very low impact on the environment, we will doubtless have found other activities which create more pollution. As always, we will have to confront the social cost of our activities and either limit them, find ways to clean them up, or charge high prices for them (maybe so we can afford to terraform Mars by the time the Earth becomes uninhabitable).
ocalhoun
SonLight wrote:
(maybe so we can afford to terraform Mars by the time the Earth becomes uninhabitable).

Or perhaps we could stop runaway population growth before Earth becomes uninhabitable.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to not see most of the other species on the planet go extinct.
Nemesis234
jwellsy wrote:
Where the heck do you think the electricity comes from to charge the batteries?


sorry i thought wind/solar power was quite well known about these days...
metalfreek
I think hydrogen fuel car is not too far in future which produce water as its emission. It would be great if it comes as fast as possible.
deanhills
metalfreek wrote:
I think hydrogen fuel car is not too far in future which produce water as its emission. It would be great if it comes as fast as possible.
Would hydrogen be a safe source of fuel however? Isn't hydrogen very explosive?
coolclay
Quote:
Isn't hydrogen very explosive?
It is true, I have blown up enough hydrogen balloons to know, but isn't gasoline extremely explosive as well. It only takes the smallest friction spark to ignite both gasoline fumes and hydrogen. It's not really the explosive issue it's the storage issue. It must be compressed. Not to mention the extremely high cost of fuel cell technology.
SonLight
ocalhoun wrote:
SonLight wrote:
(maybe so we can afford to terraform Mars by the time the Earth becomes uninhabitable).

Or perhaps we could stop runaway population growth before Earth becomes uninhabitable.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to not see most of the other species on the planet go extinct.


I should have put a great big (grin) on that one! Of course we might seriously degrade Earth in the future, but I hope we use one of the other options.

As for choosing people versus other species, I am willing to put our interests first. I think good management of the planet requires that we keep it livable not only for us but for many other species as well. But when push comes to shove, I will sacrifice the interests of other species every time in favor of human interests. Show me another creature with intelligence comparable to ours, and I will rethink that.
Bikerman
A few facts to help:
Petrol (Gasoline) is the most energy dense of the normally available fuels - ie it has more power per kilogram of fuel than electricity, hydrogen, LPG etc. This is one major issue. You will NEVER build a battery powered vehicle with the same power to weight ratio as a petrol vehicle - even if you use the latest super-dooper lithium-air batteries or any other conceivable technology.
Batteries are also NOT a fuel - merely a storage device. They simply put the problem off for one step - you still have to charge the battery somehow, and at the moment that is almost entirely by burning fossil fuels for most people.
Hydrogen has possibilities. The problem is that you need to squeeze it right down - hydrogen at room pressure contains 0.01079 Megajoules of energy per litre. For comparison, petrol contains about 34 Megajoules per litre. You therefore have to squeeze (compress) the hydrogen a very long way before it begins to approach the energy density needed. Even if you squeeze it 'all the way' - ie to liquid - then the energy density is still only 10 Megajoules per litre - about 1/3rd as good as petrol.
The trouble is that we have become used to the rolls-royce of fuel - oil is incredible stuff in terms of how much energy it packs into a small volume and nothing else comes close - short of nuclear. Obviously there are materials with more energy per volume - graphite, for example, is more like 80 megajoules per litre and aluminium is similar - but how do you get that energy out?
To compare batteries we need to use another measure - Megajoules per kilo.
Petrol, on that measure, is about 45 Megajoules per kilo. The best battery we currently have (even in the labs) - Lithium Thionyl Chloride batteries - are capable, possibly, of about 2.5 Megajoules per kilo (though we have never got near that in practice). These batteries are also not practical for the simple reason that they can only deliver their power at low voltages, they are very toxic, and they have a nasty habit of exploding. More practical batteries are rated around 0.5-1 MJ per kilo - 45 to 90 times less energy per unit mass than petrol.

The final choice is the hydrogen fuel cell - instead of compressing hydrogen into liquid and burning it like petrol, you do it in a much more controlled way chemically - like a battery (in fact it IS a battery). The hydrogen is the anode (-ve) and you use oxygen from the air as the cathode (+ve). Using a catalyst you split the hydrogen into an electron and a proton. The ion or proton passes through an electrolyte (like the fluid in a normal battery) but the electron cannot and is trapped. You make the trapped electrons travel down a wire - electricity - to rejoin the ions which have passed through the electrolyte fluid to the cathode where the electrons and ions re-unite - normally using oxygen as a further reactant to produce water at the end - very clean.

This type of fuel cell has an energy density of 1.5 Megajoules per kilo, but you don't have to carry the oxygen so it is slightly more efficient (still many times less so than petrol of course).

So thems the choices folks. None of them are as good as petrol in terms of energy per unit volume/mass but of them all hydrogen is probably the most viable. The problem at the moment is that all that compressing the hydrogen uses....yep...lots of power. The other problem is that hydrogen isn't generally found by itself - you have to 'scrape it off' some other chemical first - like splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. This requires.....you guessed it.....lots of energy......

The hydrogen fuel cell is the best technology within reasonably easy reach - once we have the reliability and cost sorted - at the moment a lot of platinum is used to catalyse the reaction and that is very expensive - alternatives are being developed.

But realise - nothing is going to give you the same power as the old gasoline guzzler, so if you are a bit of a speed freak like me, then make the best of it whilst it lasts Sad
Cliffer
yes electric cars don't pollute, but where is electric from? to produce electric can also make pollution.
we are polluted nowadays,not only because of oil cars but also many many electric stuffs.
dennishc
I think we need to take more advantage of all the free energy around, like solar cells.
I read that Google founders are investors in Nanosolar. This company offers:
Quote:
the industry’s most cost-efficient solution for utility-scale deployment of solar power
. If you go to their website, you will see the huge difference with standard solar technology. This is all about efficiency.
The current solar systems are not efficient enough, but they can be improved even more than Nanosolar does.
Once we reach certain level of efficiency in this technology, we would be able to use it in cars, homes, industry, etc.
Ghost900
I would say we will never remove pollution until we go back to the Cave Man days or start sending people to other planets in large numbers.

Even if we can lower pollution per person if the amount of people is expanding as it almost always is then overall pollution levels may increase.

I do believe that Solar/Wind power will become more popular as we are able to make Solar panels cheaper, at the moment it is not really cost effective to use Solar power to run ones home due to the cost of Solar panels.
deanhills
Ghost900 wrote:
I would say we will never remove pollution until we go back to the Cave Man days or start sending people to other planets in large numbers.

Even if we can lower pollution per person if the amount of people is expanding as it almost always is then overall pollution levels may increase.

I do believe that Solar/Wind power will become more popular as we are able to make Solar panels cheaper, at the moment it is not really cost effective to use Solar power to run ones home due to the cost of Solar panels.
Agreed. For me it has to do with too many people than are really sustainable with regard to the resources available. The key would be to work on reducing these numbers. So who knows, maybe a very ugly virus one day, or someone who accidentally triggered a nuclear bomb? Shocked
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
A few facts to help:

Lately I've been wondering about the use of capacitance to store electricity instead of batteries...

Any info on the practical and theoretical limits of storing power in banks of capacitors?
iman
those cars run on fuel cells.
They're pretty expensive and impractical right now, but they might be cheap in the future.
ocalhoun
iman wrote:
those cars run on fuel cells.
They're pretty expensive and impractical right now, but they might be cheap in the future.

Don't fuel cells require platinum as an ingredient?

I doubt they'll ever be cheap.

At least for the next 50 years, burning hydrogen would be a much better way to use it in any mass-market application.
pll
It's really interesting to read all of you.

Personnally, I really have no idea if it could be done (non-pollution cars) so I hope I can continue to read you to make an opinion about it...
timothymartin
I saw a demonstration of an electric car in the 90's which had a battery that outlasted the owner. It was a half-life thing, state of decay. Didnt need recharging. Plus the same was being used to supply houses energy and sell electricity back to the power company. But I think those companies get "bought out" and eventually disappear.
ocalhoun
timothymartin wrote:
I saw a demonstration of an electric car in the 90's which had a battery that outlasted the owner. It was a half-life thing, state of decay. Didnt need recharging. Plus the same was being used to supply houses energy and sell electricity back to the power company. But I think those companies get "bought out" and eventually disappear.

Extraordinary claims require very good evidence to prove...
What was this battery made of, surely they mentioned it, right?
What was it called?
Is there anything left that mentions its existence? Patent paperwork, perhaps?

Without any supporting evidence, it just sounds like more "There's a giant (worldwide) conspiracy to prevent the production of a practical electric car!" Silliness.
Now, there are people out there with a vested interest in preventing electric cars, even some with lots of money and power... But not so much money and power that they could completely suppress a huge innovation like that.
BigGeek
Bikerman wrote:
But realise - nothing is going to give you the same power as the old gasoline guzzler, so if you are a bit of a speed freak like me, then make the best of it whilst it lasts Sad


I love your posts MAN!!

So right on the money, on a practical side of what you explained is storage for use, I looked into converting my truck to run on CNG, or propane, and inquired about using other gasses (like hydrogen) hydrogen in the system. CNG is compressed at 3,600 psi in the tank to run the system of injectors - a lot of pressure, few fueling stations, if a valve blows off, it's like getting shot by a 30 06 Shocked

Propane is better and more available, and is stored at 600 psi, hydrogen being the most difficult because it requires special fittings in the system as the molecule is so small, it is prone to leaks. Plus you get a very limited life out of a GGE tank because the small molecules impregnate the metal and make it brittle.

PLUS your mileage drops with the alternate fuels - ie they just don't have the energy output per unit volume to produce the same hoarse power as gasoline.

So you are right about gasoline giving the biggest bang for the liter, isn't it gasoline mixed with ethanol that gives the octane rating?

Oh yeah, being a motor head I have to ask, because I have no clue what the answer is, but the top fuel drag cars run Nitro-Methane, I wonder what the energy per volume is for that? When they jump at the light at the start and the nitro kicks in, that engine goes down the track and is so loud, it shakes your guts inside your chest. Although I think it is a mix of nitro methane and gasoline....some how the gas has to be in there Laughing
ujjawall
Crinoid's suggestions are really good ones. I was on a high-protein diet at the beginning of the year, and found after one week my thinking became much sharper and clearer. Good sleep of course also makes a difference and keeping stress levels down. Also making a mental note of what you are thinking about, such as suggested by Crinoid also makes a difference for me. For example if I want to do shopping, I write down a list, when I write down stuff, I seem to remember things much better, to the extent that I don't even have to take the list with me. The act of writing down what I want to remember seems to make it that much sharper in my memory.
ujjawall
The trouble is that we have become used to the rolls-royce of fuel - oil is incredible stuff in terms of how much energy it packs into a small volume and nothing else comes close - short of nuclear. Obviously there are materials with more energy per volume - graphite, for example, is more like 80 megajoules per litre and aluminium is similar - but how do you get that energy out?
To compare batteries we need to use another measure - Megajoules per kilo.
Petrol, on that measure, is about 45 Megajoules per kilo. The best battery we currently have (even in the labs) - Lithium Thionyl Chloride batteries - are capable, possibly, of about 2.5 Megajoules per kilo (though we have never got near that in practice). These batteries are also not practical for the simple reason that they can only deliver their power at low voltages, they are very toxic, and they have a nasty habit of exploding. More practical batteries are rated around 0.5-1 MJ per kilo - 45 to 90 times less energy per unit mass than petrol. Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad
uzeed
Gikerman you wrote here that:
Bikerman wrote:

A few facts to help:
Petrol (Gasoline) is the most energy dense of the normally available fuels - ie it has more power per kilogram of fuel than electricity, hydrogen, LPG etc. This is one major issue. You will NEVER build a battery powered vehicle with the same power to weight ratio as a petrol vehicle - even if you use the latest super-dooper lithium-air batteries or any other conceivable technology.
Batteries are also NOT a fuel - merely a storage device. They simply put the problem off for one step - you still have to charge the battery somehow, and at the moment that is almost entirely by burning fossil fuels for most people.
Hydrogen has possibilities. The problem is that you need to squeeze it right down - hydrogen at room pressure contains 0.01079 Megajoules of energy per litre. For comparison, petrol contains about 34 Megajoules per litre. You therefore have to squeeze (compress) the hydrogen a very long way before it begins to approach the energy density needed. Even if you squeeze it 'all the way' - ie to liquid - then the energy density is still only 10 Megajoules per litre - about 1/3rd as good as petrol.
The trouble is that we have become used to the rolls-royce of fuel - oil is incredible stuff in terms of how much energy it packs into a small volume and nothing else comes close - short of nuclear. Obviously there are materials with more energy per volume - graphite, for example, is more like 80 megajoules per litre and aluminium is similar - but how do you get that energy out?
To compare batteries we need to use another measure - Megajoules per kilo.
Petrol, on that measure, is about 45 Megajoules per kilo. The best battery we currently have (even in the labs) - Lithium Thionyl Chloride batteries - are capable, possibly, of about 2.5 Megajoules per kilo (though we have never got near that in practice). These batteries are also not practical for the simple reason that they can only deliver their power at low voltages, they are very toxic, and they have a nasty habit of exploding. More practical batteries are rated around 0.5-1 MJ per kilo - 45 to 90 times less energy per unit mass than petrol.

The final choice is the hydrogen fuel cell - instead of compressing hydrogen into liquid and burning it like petrol, you do it in a much more controlled way chemically - like a battery (in fact it IS a battery). The hydrogen is the anode (-ve) and you use oxygen from the air as the cathode (+ve). Using a catalyst you split the hydrogen into an electron and a proton. The ion or proton passes through an electrolyte (like the fluid in a normal battery) but the electron cannot and is trapped. You make the trapped electrons travel down a wire - electricity - to rejoin the ions which have passed through the electrolyte fluid to the cathode where the electrons and ions re-unite - normally using oxygen as a further reactant to produce water at the end - very clean.

i see your view as classic

Edited by ocalhoun. Please use quote tags for quoting other users.
goldennick
I think one day we will have non-polluted vehicle.
If I think good, in some places on Earth they are present - Trams - using electrical energy from solar and wind plants. Of course batteries are not so environmental-friendly. But electrical storage industry is under permanent improvement.
ham65
that is amazing,i just think the world need something like that
naweed
non- polluting car will be a reality the day that manufacturers will make more profit on non-polluting car. the only thing that matters to them is money and not ecology
Dennise
One answer - but decades or more in the future - is nuclear. Nuclear fusion that is, not nuclear fission.

Nuclear fission - as we all know - releases lots of energy. Because of the huge mass needed for containment and safety (and so smaller energy-to-weight ratio); its only practical for stationary non-transportation applications, mass transportation or marine transportation (think aircraft carriers and submarines today). There's also the nasty radioactive waste problem with fission.

Nuclear fission on the other-hand is much cleaner (zero nasty byproducts or spent fuel?), but the containment (needed for the high temperature fusion) - whenever that is developed - might equally have too much weight to be practical for independent low occupancy transportation.

Until we have explored and understand nuclear fusion's secrets and limitations - a long time coming I think - the best interim solution is probably fuel cells, but only if hydrogen can be produced AND distributed cheaply. One idea is to use strategically located fusion reactors to produce the hydrogen for fuel cells.

Just my two cents.
ocalhoun
Dennise wrote:

Nuclear fission on the other-hand is much cleaner (zero nasty byproducts or spent fuel?),

Lower levels of nasty byproducts, but there would probably still be some radiation.
The spent fuel would be (somewhat) radioactive helium... Somehow I think that might be worse for the environment than CO2.
Quote:
but the containment (needed for the high temperature fusion) - whenever that is developed - might equally have too much weight to be practical for independent low occupancy transportation.

Quite likely.
The two places we know fusion occurs:
1- In the Sun (and other stars)
2- In a fusion bomb (activated by the extreme heat and pressure of a fission bomb)

Neither one seems to suggest that fusion could (safely) occur with minimal containment.
It (probably) requires extreme pressure and heat to work... and extreme pressure and heat need a LOT of containment in order to be safe.
Quote:

Until we have explored and understand nuclear fusion's secrets and limitations - a long time coming I think - the best interim solution is probably fuel cells, but only if hydrogen can be produced AND distributed cheaply. One idea is to use strategically located fusion reactors to produce the hydrogen for fuel cells.

Now that's a better suggestion, though there's no reason to have dedicated power plants just for producing hydrogen.
Just plug your fuel-producing plants (and the new power plants) into the existing electrical grid.
nigam
yes of course.....car manufacturers are always up to new inventions and right for the market....lets wait and see in the next few years...it will come out...
Cheeldash
pll wrote:
Do you think that someday we'll see some cars that don't pollute ?
Or a new transportation method that will have 0 effects on the Earth ?

I know that people are working on the electric car Cool and it seems to be wonderful, but it will still pollute because one day or another we will need to get rid of the batteries (which will pollute a lot too)...

But do you think one day we will be able to see a car that's hot 0 pollution for rolling from a A point to a B point? Question


No, but maybe a day people will understand how foolish cars as mass vehicle are.
deanhills
Cheeldash wrote:
No, but maybe a day people will understand how foolish cars as mass vehicle are.
OK, so what would a better alternative be then? I'm sure everyone would be interested, as it would be great if they won't need to build roads any longer, have all of that pollution going on, as well as heavy medical costs and lives lost on the roads. I'd love for us to be able to beam ourselves from A to B. Like they do in the science fictions movies. That way we can get to see Mars without having to build huge clumsy space shuttle s as well, that may take years to get to Mars.
xxhotnosxx
Iwould say we will never remove pollution until we go back to the Cave Man days or start sending people to other planets in large numbers.

Even if we can lower pollution per person if the amount of people is expanding as it almost always is then overall pollution levels may increase.

I do believe that Solar/Wind power will become more popular as we are able to make Solar panels cheaper, at the moment it is not really cost effective to use Solar power to run ones home due to the cost of Solar panels.
IceCreamTruck
deanhills wrote:
metalfreek wrote:
I think hydrogen fuel car is not too far in future which produce water as its emission. It would be great if it comes as fast as possible.
Would hydrogen be a safe source of fuel however? Isn't hydrogen very explosive?


Hydrogen is very explosive, but just so everyone knows the Hindenburg went down because the combination of two paints they used produced a thermite reaction when exposed to heat, which was proven by the Myth Buster guys. Hydrogen burns pink, and the Hindenburg burned orange.

The safety of hydrogen is an obstacle we have to over come just like the basic flammability of gasoline can complicate accidents on the roads today. Once relatively safe inside the structure of the automobile's frame you aren't going to want to survive an accident that causes so much damage it causes the tank to explode. You're probably dead before the hydrogen tank goes -- if not the explosion is insurance.
ocalhoun
IceCreamTruck wrote:

Hydrogen is very explosive, but just so everyone knows the Hindenburg went down because the combination of two paints they used produced a thermite reaction when exposed to heat, which was proven by the Myth Buster guys. Hydrogen burns pink, and the Hindenburg burned orange.

It's inconceivable, though, that the hydrogen didn't also ignite and add to the fire...
If it's possible to burn a container of hydrogen without burning the hydrogen inside*, I'd surely like to find out how. (Especially considering that it occurred at ambient pressure and temperature.)

*And for any pedants that may be present, that's without first draining the hydrogen out of it!
Quote:

The safety of hydrogen is an obstacle we have to over come just like the basic flammability of gasoline can complicate accidents on the roads today.

The only difference between a tank of hydrogen and a tank of gasoline fumes* would be the part about being under pressure.

While for a gasoline, a break in the fuel lines or a small crack in the tank would at most lead to a relatively small, slow fire (at least until the tank was burned), compressed hydrogen would rush out of a fuel line break or the smallest crack, making a large explosion more likely.


*Gasoline fumes are explosive, gasoline is not. That's another difference between gasoline and hydrogen: Only a mostly empty gasoline tank would be at risk for a major explosion, but a hydrogen tank could explode in almost any conditions.** (Though it would decrease in potential power as the tank emptied, even an empty hydrogen tank could produce an explosion similar to an empty gasoline tank.) With gasoline, fires are common, but explosions are extremely rare... With hydrogen, almost any fire might lead to an explosion.
**Okay, it could cause an explosion. The hydrogen needs to be able to mix with oxygen, and there probably won't be much oxygen in the tank. Most likely, explosions would involve the hydrogen leaking out into the body of the car or an enclosed space before coming in contact with a spark to ignite it.
Quote:
Once relatively safe inside the structure of the automobile's frame you aren't going to want to survive an accident that causes so much damage it causes the tank to explode. You're probably dead before the hydrogen tank goes -- if not the explosion is insurance.

That doesn't account for bystanders trying to help or emergency services though... It would be a bummer if you were trying to help someone out of a horrific car crash, and then the car exploded.

Besides, it is surprising what kind of wrecks can be survived sometimes. 'Probably already dead' is not the same as 'always already dead'.


It may be possible to overcome these safety concerns, but compressed flammable gas is more dangerous than ambient pressure liquid that gives off flammable fumes.



(Even safer, of course, is diesel, which usually won't even burn at all in ambient air pressure.)
anthonythangaraj
if its low cost. then it would be rapidly used
silverdown
The only car I believe doesn't pollute is having no car at all. Seriously, no car, no fuel, no repairs.... yea im crazy! Laughing Laughing Laughing
Related topics
Montoya
Back To The Future
Display Pictures
5 best cars
cars design
Democratic Leadership or Republican Leadership?
If I were President of the USA, I would.....
Imagine a world without Religion
The world in a hundred years
A 10-Year Old Takes Action for Cleaner Air in Cars
predicting:Electricity car can replace oil car in 10 years?
The Venus Project
Something in which we can ALL have faith!?!?
A vision of the ideal economy...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Amazing Projects

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.