New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Toward a greener car

trapdoor

Governor
I'm starting this thread in hopes of attracting fellow car buffs. It is prompted by a side discussion between Zoar and myself that sprang out of a gun-control related thread in the US News portion of the forum.

Although Zoar and I are frequent political opponents, we found common ground in our admiration for certain pre-WWII concept cars such as the Phantom and Y-job that contained advanced features, some unseen in production cars until 30 or more years after the concept cars displayed them.

This led to a discussion of electric and "green" cars. Zoar is a proponent of electric cars and feels that the technological problems surrounding their development would have been overcome if the "Big Three" automakers (et al), hadn't acted to kill electric cars in the early years of mass production. I feel that most electric cars lack the range and functionality of cars as Americans have become accustomed to driving them -- and that some of the problems, especially storage, have yet to be overcome. (A hydrogen fuel-cell car would be amazing, but that doesn't seem to be in the offing at the moment).

So, I think we can stipulate some design goals for a greener car. It should expel fewer (optimally, none) pollutants into the environment. At the same time, it shouldn't create pollutants that are related to its lifecycle (or at least the pollutants shouldn't be any more harmful than the pollutants currently produced by cars at the end of their lifecycles). It's operating costs must be similar to, or less than, the operating costs of internal combustion cars with similar features. And in terms of range and performance it needs to be near or above current internal-combustion cars -- this last is for marketing purposes. There is no point in making a greener car if it is so expensive or so lacking in performance that no one wants it.

My own solution to the problem is simple. I think it was solved in the 1920s by a company run by the Doble Brothers, in a couple of different guises. The Doble steam car used external combustion (they used kerosene, but there is no reason that we would have to use it -- it's a steam engine and can take heat from other sources). Its performance was similar to or greater than internal combustion car performance (it had no need to "build up" steam as the Stanely steamer did and could go from cold start to driving in less than 90 seconds). Powered by natural gas or hydrogen, and put in a modern chassis, a Doble power plant would offer a green alternative to internal combustion, and could be scrapped with little or no difference in pollutants than an internal combustion car.

But its only one idea, and a discussion of other ideas would be interesting.
 

Zoar

Governor
Good start.

Yes I am for green vehicles and I think the challenge can be accomplished a number of ways and of course there are several solutions, it is not like any one of us are saying just because we propose an idea that we intend that idea to be the solution for all transportation needs/requirements.

For example. I am all for personal transportation vehicles, essentially two seaters. I am so so so so tired of seeing Americans using giant trucks and SUV's to travel to and from work with only ONE person in them, meanwhile they are getting 12 MPG. Every person I have asked who does this and yes it is a lot of people say 'well I need this thing to haul my boat or haul my ATV's etc etc. They do this a couple fo times a year so lets say 6. So the other 359 days of the year they mostly use it to haul their one ass from point a to b. Such a misuse of resources and inefficient!

I propose part of the solution can come from these:

http://www.myersmotors.com/

or even a start in the right direction is here:

http://www.eliomotors.com/

or:

http://gadgetsin.com/smite-three-wheeled-urban-vehicle-by-swedish.htm

So that is my first reply to how we can 'start' to make better choices for our vehicles.

Also I must add this:

Natural gas is NOT so green. When one factors in all the pollution and environmental damage from Extraction, Processing, Transportation and then finally BURNING this NON-Renewable fossil fuel it is a dead end and not a ridge to anywhere except more dependence on fossil fuels. That is all it does is keep dependence on an old tired, dirty, earth devastating paradigm. .... But I digress.

What do you think of the highly efficient 3 wheeled vehicles that can transport 1 or 2 or even 3 people? as a part of the solution approach?
 

fairsheet

Senator
One of the most interesting pieces I've read on this topic, was in one of my car mags. around a year ago. It compared the relative "greeness" and efficiency of the Leaf, the Volt, and the Prius depending on what part of the country they were driven in.

For instance, up here in the PNW with our cheap hydro, the Leaf is #1 on both counts. But, in some other parts of the country with more expensive and less green power derived from coal, the Leaf brings up the rear.

And for what it's worth, all three of these technologies graded out at #1 in at least some parts of the country and some of the differences were rather dramatic. So....this suggests a bit of a problem. In order to be successful and pay for themselves, these technologies need to appeal to a broad market, but that's difficult when for instance, it makes no sense for a West Virginian or a Michigander to buy a Leaf.
 

Zoar

Governor
Well, as the technology gets more sales volume everything will get better. Also, you only use GRID power in you entire evaluation of this and I am sure in the Magazine article did as well.

I could charge my vehicle with solar and wind at home and/OR at work. and that BIG problem you site in west virginia or michigan vaporizes.

Plus there is no reason we can't have solar skins charging these cars as they sit in the parking lot at work or even as they drive along in the daylight and also charging from using the brakes... all available technologies that will just get better as sales volumes go up!.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Well, as the technology gets more sales volume everything will get better. Also, you only use GRID power in you entire evaluation of this and I am sure in the Magazine article did as well.

I could charge my vehicle with solar and wind at home and/OR at work. and that BIG problem you site in west virginia or michigan vaporizes.

Plus there is no reason we can't have solar skins charging these cars as they sit in the parking lot at work or even as they drive along in the daylight and also charging from using the brakes... all available technologies that will just get better as sales volumes go up!.
My gist and that of the car mag, went to mass markets. It IS valid to consider the idea that millions of people will invest in self-charging their electric cars. But, in terms of actual, practical, and near term solutions, I'm not sure how relevent it is.

As just one for instance - the tech. required to run on natural gas is mature, cheap, and easy. There's currently a glut of natural gas in the NE. The producers of that NG are desperate for new markets. So...it's a little unrealistic of us to assume that any significant numer of NE'sterners are going to "invest" in their own electriical power systems, when they can buy NG derived power and fill their cars at a relative bargain.

In the context of this thread, I'm making a market argument, not a value argument. Some may choose to spend more on producing their own power for the sake of the environment, but they won't do so in numbers sufficient to bend this curve. Our only option - should we seek one, would be to outlaw NG fueled cars. That's not going to happen.
 

Zoar

Governor
Plus all anti-green car people keep quoting very low range numbers.

Model S Tesla has two battery options.

The bigger battery supplies 300 miles of range at 55 MPH.

and the new Model X Tesla will get even MORE!

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

The fact is just in the past couple of years the range of electric vehicles has increased tremendously! Yet the naysayers want the range to be an issue instead of admitting that range is something that just gets better and better and is very good now and yes the prices are also coming down.
 

Zoar

Governor
My gist and that of the car mag, went to mass markets. It IS valid to consider the idea that millions of people will invest in self-charging their electric cars. But, in terms of actual, practical, and near term solutions, I'm not sure how relevent it is.

As just one for instance - the tech. required to run on natural gas is mature, cheap, and easy. There's currently a glut of natural gas in the NE. The producers of that NG are desperate for new markets. So...it's a little unrealistic of us to assume that any significant numer of NE'sterners are going to "invest" in their own electriical power systems, when they can buy NG derived power and fill their cars at a relative bargain.

In the context of this thread, I'm making a market argument, not a value argument. Some may choose to spend more on producing their own power for the sake of the environment, but they won't do so in numbers sufficient to bend this curve. Our only option - should we seek one, would be to outlaw NG fueled cars. That's not going to happen.
FRACKING has so many environmental and industrialization problems. FRACKING trucks clog up Pennsylvania and thankfully in NY we are fighting FRACKING and all the problems it causes. The FRACKING companies are liars and in truth FRACKED wells in the NE have NOT produced anywhere near the level of sustained production of what they did in other places. Even the big hits the FRACKERS love to publicize drop off radically and become duds. I do not give a damn how desperate the "producers of NG are for new markets". They are dishonest, corrupt, and don't give a damn how badly they destroy communities and environments. Thankfully enough of us in NY see their lies and misinformation as well as the devastation they have left in Pennsylvannia and we do not want any of that shitt here.

Also I noticed you so conveniently left out the vehicles charging themselves in addition to taking anything more than a short term view on local power production. You seem to have a one year or two year myopic view on all of this and it is so tiresome.

The future can be much better than how you paint it when you ONLY take the dim, myopic, short term view.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Your treatise against natural gas is acknowledged. BUT, I made specific note of the fact that I was addressing a very real market factor and function.

Rather than responding by telling us how bad NG is, what you need to do is suggest how we can - realistically - overcome the glut factor? For what it's worth, I wish we could but I don't believe we can.
 

fairsheet

Senator
FRACKING has so many environmental and industrialization problems. FRACKING trucks clog up Pennsylvania and thankfully in NY we are fighting FRACKING and all the problems it causes. The FRACKING companies are liars and in truth FRACKED wells in the NE have NOT produced anywhere near the level of sustained production of what they did in other places. Even the big hits the FRACKERS love to publicize drop off radically and become duds. I do not give a damn how desperate the "producers of NG are for new markets". They are dishonest, corrupt, and don't give a damn how badly they destroy communities and environments. Thankfully enough of us in NY see their lies and misinformation as well as the devastation they have left in Pennsylvannia and we do not want any of that shitt here.

Also I noticed you so conveniently left out the vehicles charging themselves in addition to taking anything more than a short term view on local power production. You seem to have a one year or two year myopic view on all of this and it is so tiresome.

The future can be much better than how you paint it when you ONLY take the dim, myopic, short term view.
For what it's worth by the way, I joined this thread on the top-poster's suggestion that we consider this one rationally. Your resort to personal analysis of ME, rather than my ideas, contradicts his suggestion.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Interesting. Although I don't remember riding in it (it was sold when I was only a year or so old), my father had a '57 Olds Holiday. I think it was the favorite car he ever owned, as he talked about it fondly the rest of his life.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Good start.

Yes I am for green vehicles and I think the challenge can be accomplished a number of ways and of course there are several solutions, it is not like any one of us are saying just because we propose an idea that we intend that idea to be the solution for all transportation needs/requirements.

For example. I am all for personal transportation vehicles, essentially two seaters. I am so so so so tired of seeing Americans using giant trucks and SUV's to travel to and from work with only ONE person in them, meanwhile they are getting 12 MPG. Every person I have asked who does this and yes it is a lot of people say 'well I need this thing to haul my boat or haul my ATV's etc etc. They do this a couple fo times a year so lets say 6. So the other 359 days of the year they mostly use it to haul their one ass from point a to b. Such a misuse of resources and inefficient!

I propose part of the solution can come from these:

http://www.myersmotors.com/

or even a start in the right direction is here:

http://www.eliomotors.com/

or:

http://gadgetsin.com/smite-three-wheeled-urban-vehicle-by-swedish.htm

So that is my first reply to how we can 'start' to make better choices for our vehicles.

Also I must add this:

Natural gas is NOT so green. When one factors in all the pollution and environmental damage from Extraction, Processing, Transportation and then finally BURNING this NON-Renewable fossil fuel it is a dead end and not a ridge to anywhere except more dependence on fossil fuels. That is all it does is keep dependence on an old tired, dirty, earth devastating paradigm. .... But I digress.

What do you think of the highly efficient 3 wheeled vehicles that can transport 1 or 2 or even 3 people? as a part of the solution approach?
Natural gas isn't green when burned in a piston. Almost nothing is. Burned as an open flame, it's much less polluting.

I have no problem with the personal vehicles, but I don't think they can be built and used while complying with U.S. motor vehicle safety standards.

If I had the resources, and sadly I do not, I'd have already been driving one of these since the mid-1990s:

Unfortunately they're a ~$80K purchase. A bit out of my price range.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Plus all anti-green car people keep quoting very low range numbers.

Model S Tesla has two battery options.

The bigger battery supplies 300 miles of range at 55 MPH.

and the new Model X Tesla will get even MORE!

http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

The fact is just in the past couple of years the range of electric vehicles has increased tremendously! Yet the naysayers want the range to be an issue instead of admitting that range is something that just gets better and better and is very good now and yes the prices are also coming down.
Yes, but personally, about 12 times a year I need to drive 450 miles (one way, not round trip) at actual highway speeds (which in the midwest means not 55 mph, but 75 mph, on average). When they can sell me a car that will do that either non stop or with the single, 5-minute refueling my Mustang provides, winter and summer, that costs less than $30K, sure, I'd be interested. But if they can't do that, I'd still have to own another car in addition to the electric one.
 

Zoar

Governor
Natural gas isn't green when burned in a piston. Almost nothing is. Burned as an open flame, it's much less polluting.

I have no problem with the personal vehicles, but I don't think they can be built and used while complying with U.S. motor vehicle safety standards.

If I had the resources, and sadly I do not, I'd have already been driving one of these since the mid-1990s:

Unfortunately they're a ~$80K purchase. A bit out of my price range.
Yes I dig those Montracers, too! A motorcycle with a cowling and an automated mechanism that goes down and keeps it stabilized when stopped. I dig it.

I have a BMW 1150 RT motorcycle and could turn it into one of these basically for a couple of grand. There are a number of kits, small retrofit companies in the market who offer such capability. But the BMW cowling on the 1100's to 1200's is go darn good I have not been compelled to put a whole cowling over it. Maybe of I had two I would (haha).
 

trapdoor

Governor
Yes I dig those Montracers, too! A motorcycle with a cowling and an automated mechanism that goes down and keeps it stabilized when stopped. I dig it.

I have a BMW 1150 RT motorcycle and could turn it into one of these basically for a couple of grand. There are a number of kits, small retrofit companies in the market who offer such capability. But the BMW cowling on the 1100's to 1200's is go darn good I have not been compelled to put a whole cowling over it. Maybe of I had two I would (haha).
The monotracer made by Peraves automates the stabilizing "landing gear" (Possibly an appropriate term, as the designer was a retired Swissaire and military pilot). I've not seen a kit that would do that. My own bike is a 2000 Harley Heritage softail. It's primitive.
 

Zoar

Governor
For what it's worth by the way, I joined this thread on the top-poster's suggestion that we consider this one rationally. Your resort to personal analysis of ME, rather than my ideas, contradicts his suggestion.
For what its worth, I am putting you on ignore. I hoped to join this thread to have a mostly positive discussion about green vehicles and vehicles in general because we agreed we shared a passion for vehicles and wanted someplace on PJ to enjoy ourselves. All your posts thus far have been: "blah blah blah, ain't gonna happen, nope, not realistic, blah blah, not possible, blah blah, no sireeee, blah blah" ....You are a total downer. I came here to have some fun on this thread, talking with some people who normally disagree with me on (almost) everything. So, bye bye downer downer downer man.
 

fairsheet

Senator
That's cool. Of course I have my OWN opinions of those head-in-the-cloudsters who think they can wish away the American market and reality!....but I chose to leave them out in the spirit suggested by the top poster.
 

Zoar

Governor
The monotracer made by Peraves automates the stabilizing "landing gear" (Possibly an appropriate term, as the designer was a retired Swissaire and military pilot). I've not seen a kit that would do that. My own bike is a 2000 Harley Heritage softail. It's primitive.
Hahaaaa! I like that you call it primitive. But cool.

My other bike is an old 1981 CB 750 Honda that has been bobbed and chopped some. Primitive is the word for that one, too.

Also, as far as some other cowled vehicles go:

http://www.zapworld.com/zap-alias-electric-car

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/ev-startup-aptera-goes-bankrupt-dangers-utopian-vehicle-making.html

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1076425_aptera-its-baaaaaaaaack-well-believe-it-when-we-see-it
 
Last edited:
Top