how far away till electrical cars or whatever go mainstream?

[Unicron]

Energy friendly vehicles or non gas consuming vehicles

What about vehicles with sun panels or some sort of way to gain energy from the wind

So Sun panels for energy while it sits idle, also has electrical and then when the car moves it has wind turbines built into the car somehow that converts the energy of moving/wind and turns it into more electricity?

[Majinvegeta]

the technology is there, its just some people don't want this implemented.

[ELT]

I'm assuming you're talking about mainstream cars ?
If you're ready to put up with like 100km range and a trunk full of batteries - yeah, the technology is there.
As for the solar panels - what are they gonna charge from at night, street lights ? This is despite the fact they have low efficiency, have to have clean surface to work, and are environmentally unfriendly in production - which kinda beats the purpose.
Wind turbines - are you kidding ? First you're trying to create that wind by moving a vehicle, and then to get some energy from that wind ? Read about the laws of thermodynamics.
The hybrids are about the best thing we can do right now for mainstream.
All said above is my IMHO.

[konfusion666]

Define "mainstream". Does that mean like at least 25% of the populace?

If so, I'd say 10 years at the earliest.

[Brandon]

the technology is there, its just some people don't want this implemented.

It's probably not as simple as this.

If you're talking about plug-in electric cars, if everyone started using them, it'd put a huge load on the electrical grid. There wouldn't be enough capacity, especially considering there are regular brownouts in some areas already. Plus the supply chain needs to ramp up in order to have adequate supply of parts/components. There are tons of different electrical components (battery cells) that are new for electric vehicles compared to combustion engine vehicles.

The proper infrastructure needs to be put in place before electric vehicles will be mainstream!!

I guess this is where hybrids come in. They're transitional vehicles that make sense, especially since gas stations are everywhere... but they also tout the benefits that electrical vehicles provide.

[spf1971]

Toyota has started to install solar panels on the Prius to run the A/C and another company has modified the Prius to charge with the solar cells.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9985501-1.html

[stuntman]

Energy friendly vehicles or non gas consuming vehicles

What about vehicles with sun panels or some sort of way to gain energy from the wind

So Sun panels for energy while it sits idle, also has electrical and then when the car moves it has wind turbines built into the car somehow that converts the energy of moving/wind and turns it into more electricity?

Sun panels? Do you mean solar panels? They are not considered to be a viable option for a main power source on a car.
OK....so someone has a post them being at least used.....my bad.


Wind turbines? What sci-fi books have you been reading lately? are any of the concept or production cars running these as main power sources?

Read a few articles and then post back with a relevant question or maybe this post is better in a sci-fi forum.

SM

[pitz]

There has to be an electrical grid and massive augmentation of generation capacity in order for electric cars to be viable. Why? 2 reasons:

1) The cars will need electricity, duh, and the grid and generating capacity is already stretched to the limit.

2) Americans will have to be able to afford to buy them, and this will only happen when there is a revival in manufacturing and the economy more broadly, which, in itself, requires massive amounts of new electrical infrastructure.

Electrical cars, at least for the considerable future, will be like cars powered by deep-fryer waste. A few cars on the road will work out just fine, but large-scale use isn't really possible.

[mr_raider]

Solar panels... pffft. I'll stick to my matter/anti-matter injectors thank you very much.

[jedijome]

i thought people would charge them overnight when there wasn't such a great load on the grid.

ie people weren't cooking/doing laundry/at work/ so on.
they would still need more generating capicity but it's not like everyone is switching overnight.

and besides even if gas consumption was cut by 20 or 30% that's still significant.

[pitz]

i thought people would charge them overnight when there wasn't such a great load on the grid.

That's true. The problem is, to meet peak loads during the day typically requires the use of extremely expensive and relatively innefficient generation.

Plug-in cars look attractive when you look at costs based on *average* prices of electricity, but if you look at the cost of electricity on an incremental, or marginal basis, for those cars, instead of using traditional liquid transportation fuels, the economics aren't nearly as compelling.

Also, along the same lines, the capital costs of upgrading not only regional grids, but local distribution grids, and even backyard transformers, to meet the demand, is enormous. That has to be factored against alternatives such as merely upgrading petrol engines to the latest in technologies to get 50mpg (possible with mid-sized cars using turbochargers, direct injection, and a few other tricks).

ie people weren't cooking/doing laundry/at work/ so on.
they would still need more generating capicity but it's not like everyone is switching overnight.

The problem also can be distilled down further:

1) North America needs to grow its generating capacity dramatically, to facilitate manufacturing and economic growth;

2) North America has increasingly limited fuel supplies in the form of natural gas to run existing gas-fired generation. (blame the oilsands! -- and manufacturing itself is gas-intensive)

3) The majority of North America's coal and nuclear-fired generating capacity is nearing the end of its service life in the next decade or so.

So not only is a very substantial amount of new generation required for growth, but a substantial amount is needed just to keep up with what is wearing out.

and besides even if gas consumption was cut by 20 or 30% that's still significant.

20-30% reduction in petrol consumption could easily be accomplished through regulatory changes (ie: lower speed limits), taxation, or the relatively simple application of technology on existing petrol-only designs.

Oh...and the Prius and the other hybrids never really made sense, even when fuel prices were high, because of the cost of battery replacement, and the extra cost of the vehicle itself. Plug-in vehicles won't be any better in that aspect in solving that fundamental problem.

[Topher]

If researchers keep adding other little ways to harness energy, such as from braking, waste heat, etc., then we'd start to see some real gains in hybrid vehicles. Let's hope that with the economy where it is, and the recent price of oil scare, that these technologies begin to happen regularly. Here's another interesting one I read about just a few days ago.

http://techfragments.com/news/415/Te..._Your_Car.html

[pitz]

If researchers keep adding other little ways to harness energy, such as from braking, waste heat, etc., then we'd start to see some real gains in hybrid vehicles.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. There's a tradeoff between complexity, weight, and efficiency, which is actually quite delicate in cars. A significant handicap of hybrid cars is the sheer extra weight of the batteries and electric generators that they must carry.

Hybrids also become less compelling when innovations such as CVT's (Constant Variable Transmissions), and direct-shifting transmissions are used in petrol-fired cars. Hybrids also don't have significant advantages insofar as highway operation is concerned.

Trying to recover a little bit of energy from the mechanical dampers (shock absorbers) in cars would represent complexity and expense that far exceeds the cost of additional fuel.

BMW is trying a system right now to recover waste heat from exhaust, a combined-cycle system, inside vehicles. They claim a 15% gain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosteamer

Now whether a 15% fuel efficiency gain will ever cover the extra cost remains to be seen. Certainly not at $140/barrel oil, definitely not at $40/barrel.

Let's hope that with the economy where it is, and the recent price of oil scare, that these technologies begin to happen regularly. Here's another interesting one I read about just a few days ago.

Do you see companies being eager to develop fuel efficiency improvements when fuel is cheaper than its been in years?

[bobby5]

Trying to recover a little bit of energy from the mechanical dampers (shock absorbers) in cars would represent complexity and expense that far exceeds the cost of additional fuel.

Maybe so for now. But technology is improving all the time, so who knows what the future would be:

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2009/02/students-at-the.html

[stuntman]

Now whether a 15% fuel efficiency gain will ever cover the extra cost remains to be seen. Certainly not at $140/barrel oil, definitely not at $40/barrel.

You forgot about the environmental costs.