Did you see the Jeremy interview with two lovely looking BBC lady reporters? One of them did a fairly good time around the circuit in the average family car, but came more than half way down the board of times. Jeremy explained that it was wet weather when she did her drive, and had it been dry, she would have been higher up the board, about here. “Then why don’t you stick it right up there, right now?” was the question, the only one really, that I have seen leave Jeremy speechless.

Re Science, of course if you make a heavier car you lose efficiency. It’s a poor excuse to claim benefit from regenerative braking into the electricals, like Prius. Reason is, when your brakes wore out would you rather pay for a new set of disc pads or a whole new set of electro-mechanical components? I’d rater pay for one of those BBC lasses, but never a small bag of muddy spinach.

I’ll stick to my Miata, thank you. The price differential, figuring $4/gallon gasoline and 12,000 miles per year will provide me with over 37 years of driving. Of course, I cannot wear that smug “I’m greener than you” look.

At least it looks sexy.

What is a “sex life??”

kuhnkat: not something you get from boasting about what car you drive.

Unfortunately Clarkson is a proven idiot and he shows it once again. Hydrogen cars, which he seems rather fond of, are far less green and costlier than the Tesla. And if he had driven any other sports car the same way as he drove that Tesla then it wouldn’t have got any farther owing to the tiny fuel tanks and thirsty engines prevalent in these luxury goods. A cost comparison with the Elize is ridiculous too because he could have picked a Bugatti or a McLaren which are 5 times dearer than a Tesla. Anyway, nobody buys any supercar for practical day to day driving. It is 100% for posing – parking it in Peurto Banus Harbour for example.

Happily I do have a 3 phase supply and rarely need to go more than 100 miles in a day but I’d buy one of the cheaper electric cars. I’d go for the new Blue car. Bring ‘em on.

Yes, any view of the future would have to include the trend to greater electrification throughout society. Not my original observation, but cars will become like washing machines — electrical appliances with high reliability and low cost — and the value proposition is getting very close with these small cars for a second ‘town car’ at least. Buying luxury cars will become like buying a high end dishwasher. I think its done because it washes dishes better, not to impress the neighbours.

James G,

Proven idiocy pays well.

I drive a big car on 98 octane fuel because it is supercharged. The reason the car is big is because I’m bigger than Clarkson, but slimmer. When they make an alternative car into which I can fit, I might do a cradle to grave costing and then see it it’s worthwhile. Meantime, as a sceptic I do not base my buying decisions on sales propaganda.

My 2001 GSXR1000K1 does 0-60mph in about 3 seconds, 1/4 mile in about 10.4, and tops out around 165 (with current gearing). At the same time it manages 35mpg around town and over 40 on the highway.

What I lose in handling to cars, I can make up in braking and acceleration against all but the most high performance!!

I have performance and FUN for less than $15,000.

Material used in manufacture is substantially less than most 4 wheel street legal vehicles.

Having been ZAPPED a few times in my life due to wet, frayed cables and other miscellania, something about buying an ELECTRIC car for wet weather rubs me wrong! ;>)

Seeing as we are doing the silly male testosterone thing here:

I drive a 2001 Toyota MR2 Spyder with a Blitz Japan turbo conversion.

Stunning acceleration, handling and top speed, great reliability, cheap running and white knuckles – all for <US$15K.

My priorities? Good ground clearance for gravel roads and fording long flooded floodplains. Decent air conditioning that works in 40C+ heat. Room to stretch and decent cupholders for long trips. Kid resistant interior. Room for camping stuff. Off the lot. Nissan Xtrail 4×4.

Don’t worry David, one day, when the kids have all grown up and become successful Wall Street traders you might yet be able to get your mojo working again….

Ha! My favorite vehicle is my rare 69 Ford F-100. Rare, because it has an overdrive. 20-some-year olds are fascinated by the three-on-the-tree shifter and AM-only radio. 360 cubic inch engine; 13 mpg in town and 18-20 on highway! I’ve owned it for over 30 years. Only 245,000 miles. My kids think I’m dumb, but I don’t care.

David, Steve, and JAE,

excellent choices for completely different reasons!!

The rationality of freedom that can’t be found in the PC world.

I was observing similar to kuhkcat (whom I presumed from his name drove a bulldozer) that the diversity of style of vehicles could reflect a trait like dissidence or independence or defiance, which are all good characteristics in an over-regulated society. Especially when it comes to publishing. Goodness, if we did not live so far apart we might hace cause for a meet and drag. Or is it a certain Top Gear luminary who has the drag?

Now do you suppose that being a piston-lover is actually a good reason to be critical of electric cars? What if the electric vehicle was allowed to become just another of those purchasing freedoms with it’s own market segment, having, as it it does, only one main limitation (range) but with some rather choice advantages; quietness, non-polluting, low maintenance, convenient home recharge, cheap fuel and is even green too (because night time charging uses up energy that is currently wasted). The people who criticized Clarkson for this stunt are no different to those who criticise him for smashing up classic cars on a whim, saying that tanked-up 17-year olds are safer than pensioners, or running-down Rover every chance he got by continuous petty smart-arse carping. The man is a tosspot who is criticized endlessly by everyone merely because he is a tosspot. He simply chose to misinterpret the criticism this time as some green campaign. His tiny brain may have sensed that was the case but it wasn’t. A lot of non-greenies want electric cars to succeed too. Even the Daily Mail criticized him and they are the paper the most skeptical of AGW.

As I sit weekly in front of Top Gear, beer in hand, emitting the odd guffaw and other noises particularly characteristic of middle age, my partner often walks by and asks ” Why do you watch that show? That Clarkson is a total and utter d******d!”

If my brain waves are not too flat lined at the time (i.e. normal), I may wearily explain to her that technically, it is both necessary and healthy for me to periodically get in touch with my ‘inner teenager’ or my ‘ inner halfwit’.

I tell her it makes a nice break from all that getting in touch with my ‘feminine side’ or e.g. with Mythbusters, my ‘inner wingnut’.

Hmmmph she says and walks off.

“If my brain waves are not too flat lined at the time (i.e. normal), I may wearily explain to her that technically, it is both necessary and healthy for me to periodically get in touch with my ‘inner teenager’ or my ‘ inner halfwit’. ”

I guess many of us mortals are doomed to go to the grave with this love of autos, because of: (multiple choice, but check all that apply) (1) peer pressure, (2) effort to prove manliness because of some problem, like small man or small dick syndrome, (3) inexplicable love of power and force, (4) prestige and/or snobbery, (5) brainwashing by father or TV, (6) still hoping to “be somebody,” (7) we just don’t have a clue why. And electric cars just won’t suffice, no matter how powerful. They just don’t make the all-important noises.

jae,

don’t forget the all important rebellion against authority!!!

Geoff S,

the kuhn is my last name. The kat is short for KATANA, the model name of my 1983 Suzuki GS1100SD. Together they make up the California custom license plate KUHNKAT which has graced it since about 1986. When I finally got online I just had to drag it along!!!

Except for that, you would probably be right!! My dad was a cat-skinner since he got out of the Army Air Corps about 1945. He drove, or worked on, heavy equipment all of my life. Nothing like a Caterpillar D-9 to intimidate the odd SUV or Mac truck driver!!

Interesting. Do you ever wear a Kuhn Skin Kap? My ancestors on my Dad’s side are all East End Cockneys back to ~1680, mostly carpenters and wood carvers. But while investigating the family tree I came across my poor ancestral half wit whose death certificate recorded his occupation as ‘pure collector’. She said: “no wonder you love dogs…..”

I think the main attraction of cars is freedom. You get in and go where you want when you want. If there was a car powered by a small nuclear reactor that didn’t need refueling I would be interested. Seriously, a large part of the attraction of electric for me is the efficiency, fewer parts, less noise.

IIRC, there is no reason other than political timidity why a Pu-238 powered car could not be on the road in a year. The concept is so simple. The plutonium drives a thermoelectric device, various designs available, take your pick if you want a small motor on each wheel (motorcycles excepted) with stability control. Pu-238 energy sources for electricity have been in spacecraft for decades, so it’s not as it it’s new technology. Being an alpha emitter, the radiation is shielded by a piece of paper style surround, no need for any lead. It has a half life of 88 years, so youngsters who start to speed at 176 kph in their new WRX-PUs will be doing 88 by the time their hair is as grey as mine.

admin #22

“Seriously, a large part of the attraction of electric for me is the efficiency, fewer parts, less noise.”

Seriously, I agree. I have a gut feeling microbial fuel cells will be the way to go for (terrestrial) transportation energy. Here is a wild but hypothetically feasible route to this:

(1) Regardless of AGW, we scrub all our coal fired power stations, cement kilns etc exhaust gases of CO2, SOx, NOx and dust using a suspension of cyanobacteria (algae) in waste secondary sewage effluent etc. using vertical film bioreactors or open lagoons.

(2) We continually hydrocyclone out the algae to a 70% w/v pumpable slurry. FYI, this has exactly the carbon content of liquid CO2!

(3) We lyse (break) all the cells in the slurry with cheap enzymes to produce a thick solution. If desired this can be pumped into geo-reservoirs (= carbon sequestration) but ideally should be used as biofuel for biochemical fuel cells. This is called ‘hedging all bets’.

(4) We build microbial fuel cells powered by (GM-optimized?) species of bacteria. The electrodes can be any cheap porous version of graphite even ‘biochar’.

(5) When we ‘fill ‘er up’ at the service station we take on board a thick aqueous solution of lysed algae not unlike molasses or Guiness. The onboard microbial fuel cell essentially oxidizes the soluble organic matter to CO2 and low MW organic acids producing electricity to run our vehicles.

This approach has two advantages, namely:

(1) We get much more ‘bang for the buck’ from every atom of fossil carbon utilized.

(2) If AGW turns out to be real, then a safe, bulk CO2 isolation industry is already readily capitalized and in place to scrub the major part of our carbon emissions and geosequester them.

(3) Regardless, all materials are cheap, all microorganisms safe, all technology non-complex. This makes it fully available and fast to implement by rich and poor nations alike.

http://www.geobacter.org/research/microbial/

Steve, biosequestration fuel, cost it cradle to grave?

Steve: I like your concept, but I don’t know if it can work that way. I currently run a large biofilter for pollution control (air toxics) and it has very low capture efficiency for most organic compounds. Probably about zero for CO2.

Pushing down

down boy

down again, down down down

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=58713

http://www.greenfuelonline.com/

Photosynthesis. Uses only a small fraction of the energy from the Sun. Maybe some pretty inefficient “solar cells” there?

jae #28

“Photosynthesis. Uses only a small fraction of the energy from the Sun. Maybe some pretty inefficient “solar cells” there?”

OK then, please don’t breath in! Save the 21% O2 created 2.5 Gy ago by ‘inefficient’ cyanobacteria and sustained ‘inefficiently’ by photosynthesis ever since for us more deserving O2-breathing individuals (;-)

And another angle:

“China raised the price of its co-operation in the world’s climate change talks yesterday by calling for developed countries to spend 1 per cent of their domestic product helping poorer nations cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The funding – amounting to more than $300bn based on Group of Seven countries – would be spent largely on the transfer of “green” technologies, such as renewable energy, to poorer countries.
–Financial Times, 29 October 2008″

So, if the Chinese etc want greenhouse gas emission reduction technology I would say: let them eat algae, my dear.

Why? Well, it’s a damn sight cheaper than trying to bribe them adopt a highly capital intensive, as yet poorly developed technology for scrubbing CO2 with complex amines etc (while at the same time avoiding chronic ‘poisoning’ of the absorbent by by SOx, NOx and dust), energy-intensively compressing it to a supercritical liquid CO2, piping it (safely?) across miles of country (or urban areas!) and then (again safely?) injecting it into a (inherently secure?) geo-reservoir.

Getting my drift yet?

And all we need is the amount of money that GM loses every month.

Is item number 1), painting a chimney with a film of sewage?

Might be better to ditch the coal and go for methane instead. Is there enough sewage to go round though?

(1) The GM issue is a distraction. This technology will stand on its own without GM of either cyanobacteria or microorganisms for microbial fuel cells. Read the web references or do a little Googling of your please before hastily rushing to the keyboard.

(2) All coal fired power stations require large amounts of cooling water for heat exchangers and for waste heat/exhaust gas towers – very much more than is used for raising steam as the latter is condensed and reused. For this reason, the cooling water used is generally a low grade water e.g. sea water, estuarine water, river water, saline groundwaters or secondary sewage effluent. Indeed the availability of such water is a key issue when siting a power stations – sometimes marginally more significant than where the coal is.

It does help to have a decent technical understanding of the body of established energy technology in order to understand/discuss how to modify, improve or adapt it.

Re Kuhnkat at 20,

You might like this video:

Where is my Dozer_1.pps

Not sure what it is linked to and might not run. It’s a corker so anyone who wants a look email me at sherro1@optusnet.com.au and I’ll email back. Geoff.

New World Record at Bandimere 7.890 second (also 174 MPH!)

http://www.killacycle.com/2008/10/24/new-world-record-at-bandimere-7890-second-also-174-mph/

(includes video of the run)

I might have to change my mind about electric!!

Oh I’m sure it would work Steve. I trust you. Though I have designed power generation equipment for several years and even directed teams of welders and fitters in constructing them; both coal and nuclear. And if my current consultancy flops I’ll have to go back to doing that. Not one of these plants used sewage effluent for cooling. Tests were done mind you but it (unsurprisingly) caused severe and rapid fouling of the heat exchangers, so the idea was kicked into touch here. If they use that method of cooling where you live, I guess they must have a pretty sh*tty system in more ways than one. But scrubbing of course is a different issue altogether from cooling. Peace.

James

As I noted above the cooling water used (in coal fired power stations) is generally a low grade water e.g. sea water, estuarine water, river water, saline groundwaters or secondary sewage effluent. The point is any low grade water will do.

I am not quite sure why you are focussed on secondary sewage effluent as that is an uncommon source of cooling water which is not commonly encountered in the developed world (but is found elsewhere).

Try to avoid nit picky distractions and focus on the fundamental principles of algal biosequestration of CO2 from coal fired power stations, cement kilns etc.

USDOE studied algal biosequestration for about 9 years using lagoon technology. There is a massive report on it . You could probably find it ny Googling. Some of the work was done in the Salton Sea SE of LA. You may be able to find it via this:

http://listserv.netl.doe.gov/mailman/listinfo/sequestration

The fact is algal biosequestration of CO2 from coal fired power stations is happening alreadyat a pilot plant level in the US, Europe and Australia.

As a power station chemist of 4 years early in my working life career I believe it is the way to go IF we want to pre-empt the possibility that AGW is real.

Even if AGW is not real then it is still an excellent route to the production of feedstock for biodiesel – much better than growing corn or ripping up valuable rainforests to plant palm oil palms.