On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:29:49 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:18:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:01:34 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:59:42 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:36:04 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:16:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:53:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Doug wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:16:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Doug wrote:

Agreed. I've read they will have filling stations for electric cars
too and I think they already have some as a prototype but I don't
recall where.


At the current rate, it will take hundreds of years to convert to
electric vehicles.

Why?


Think about it. The technology isn't there. The power generation
isn't there. It can take 25 years to get the permits to build & put one
power plant on line. Viable electric vehicles have been "Just around
the corner" for 100 years. Picture this: Every car in town is
electric. A massive power failure and after a few days most of them are
sitting on the road where the batteries died. How long before people
start stealing the expensive batteries to replace their failed batteries
instead of paying the dealer full retail?

Study electronics for yourself, and do some heavy math. You'll see
for yourself. There is very little excess capacity in the grid, and the
nighttime usage allows them to take some generators or controls down for
minor repairs. Without that, the whole facility is run till it needs a
major overhaul, which can take months or years. The entire grid is
aging, and a lot of equipment is well past its design life. Between the
MBAs, NIMBYs and Greenies, it's a looming crisis.

After a major power failure, half the people in an area buy
gernerators. If we have electric cars, we'll just have to buy little
trailers to carry the generators...

Seriously, electric cars are likely to have only slow and incremental
growth. The most likely scenario I've seen involves several
configurations and energy sources: all-electrics for people who have
another car; plug-in hybrids (with or without trailers g);
liquid-fuel cars (gasoline; diesel; gasohol) and CNG cars. Hydrogen
fuel cells seem, to me, to be least likely, or to require some
breakthrough that we don't know about yet. The wire-in-road electrics
sound like "a helicopter in every garage."

It will be interesting to see how all of these types jocky for market
share. Lithium-based batteries sound like they're going to be a
limiting factor for electrics, but there is always another battery
technology in a lab somewhere. Don't bet the farm or count them out.


So why dont they build steam cars?

1) Poor thermodynamic efficiency (Stanleys and Dobles could get away
with very low efficiencies, because IC engines at the time weren't
much better)

2) High cost

3) High maintenance


The last two would appear to be undocumented

Care to try again?

Nope. I'm sure that you could find out if you cared to. Do your
homework first.

Start by looking up high-efficiency steam engines. Note how complex
they become when you get above 25% or so thermodynamic efficiency. In
small sizes, like with an automobile, they are *extremely* difficult,
if not impossible. IC engine research now is working in the range of
40 - 43% thermodynamic efficiency. Steam would have to be close, which
it is not.

So this is a Hollywood special effects piece?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZJsvDy19I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N98mXwTsx5A

The fact that none of them are being built today should give you your
answer. They just can't cut it.

Steam is just not an answer, Gunner, no matter how much you may like
it.


Say...isnt the internal combustion engine somewhere around 28%
effecient?

Not the latest ones. We're headed for 40% as a typical number within a
few years. Some cars surpass it now.

--
Ed Huntress