Electric cars that were stopped

[bodgit]

A mate sent me this thought I'd share. It may be of interset to some of you.

[bodgit]

[bodgit]

[bodgit]

disregard

[bodgit]

In the meantime we can all look forwards to paying more for our petrol

[Col]

Pics not working, Steve!

I can't make head nor tail of the link address either

[bodgit]

Sorry guys I have no idea why the pctures were there one minute then gone the next. The link was very old so prob does not exist any more.

[Col]

Interesting... pics working now

[johnnygibbon]

All very true and very sickening
I want a water car
I really want a water car

And even an water powered Rc car eventually
Good post bodgit I've seen those stories individually
But not All in one article
It's even more annoying that we don't have a hydrogen / water car in full production and on sale

[terry.sc]

It would help if any of the facts were correct.
For a start, Jeff Luers didn't burn Hummers. He already had a previous attempted arson conviction and his sentence for arson at a Chevrolet dealership is 10 years, even the courts though the 22 year sentence was excessive.

The Genepax would never work on just water, to extract the hydrogen from the water to run the car will need more electricity than the resultant gas can produce, or if the water was separated by a chemical reaction there will need to be a hydride that is used up in the process, so again not just water powered.

Nobody is stopping anyone running on hydrogen. If you want to run your car on hydrogen, there are companies that have been around for years that will convert it for you so it can run on both petrol and hydrogen in case you can't get to a hydrogen refilling station.

If anyone wants an electric car, again there are plenty about, just don't expect to find too many of them at a major car manufacturer. The Rav4 and EV-1 were only introduced due to Californias zero emissions regulations, once the laws were dropped the cars weren't renewed at the end of their lease - they were crushed because the makers by law would have had to keep making spares for the few hundred of cars on the road and the problems of what happens with the car when the nimh battery gave out and couldn't be replaced.

Although one part of the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is right, Chevron ended up with the patent for large nimh cells and basically killed off the use of nimh, but they never dismantled the factory. They would produce the batteries for anyone who ordered them, but only in huge quantities making it unviable for electric cars but they do provide batteries for hybrid cars. Although thanks to improvements in battery technology large car companies are already developing new electric cars now using lithium-ion batteries, such as the Chevrolet Volt, so bypassing the Chevron patent.

[colmo]

For cars running solely off power from the mains, there's another problem. Most of that energy is generated by fossil fuel power stations anyway. We have three choices - carry on with fossil fuels that are going to get expensive soon as they require more and more novel solutions to extract, go nuclear, or sort out the renewables. I'm guessing we'll be forced to go for the latter two.

For cars, the Fisker reviewed on Top Gear looks a good interim solution, and unlike a hybrid, the power plant can be replaced whenever something new comes along, as it's not mechanically tied to the drivetrain. Biofuels made from crops won't work, as they require arable land and thus increase food prices, but there have been advances in biofuel made from high pressure and temperature treatment of sewage. Brown stuff goes in, liquid petrol-like stuff comes out. This may be preferable to methane as that requires energy to pressurise the gas, not sure of the energy costs of the treatment process though.

[Origineelreclamebord]

Electric cars don't actually solve the problem, it moves the problem to the power plants. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying using electric cars would be a start and an improvement, however as long as the world still burns coal, oil, gas and other resources that we drain from the lands and give nothing for in return, then pollution shall remain largely the way it is today.

It's a matter of wanting, and essentially there are some people who just don't want it. It just so happens to be that these people get more money in their pockets by slowly moving to more environmentally friendly products over the years, pretending that it's the best they can do when they can do better... and a lot better too. For your example of electric cars: electric vehicles were already developed in the industrial age, but lost users along the way to and early in the 20th century. If electric vehicles had been developed through all those years even half as intensively as petrol, diesel etc cars would've been then who knows where we could've been today. But if, when, etc. is a bad excuse really. It's pretty easy looking back on stuff (if it documented, that is :P), learning from it and trying to change for the better is a lot harder (but a more contributing option).

The problem is perhaps not the fact we consume, but the fact that we use (a lot of) resources we didn't find on the surface. If you don't put it back there in some kind of form (from it's original material to the emissions), it's going to cause a change on the surface of the world and it's atmosphere - simply put, it pollutes.

The best solution to this problem is another problem: That many materials we use are getting scarce. These fuel sources will eventually be too expensive for the scale and type of consumption we see today (not just fuel, but everything we extract from the ground), and humanity will be forced to try something new or start scrambling for the valuable stuff in our own garbage.

One thing is for sure: It'll be an interesting future for (future) product designers like me

[Chris56]

I was impressed with the Fisker on sunday's Top Gear, although the technology behind it's workings has been seen before several decades ago:

[RudolfXC]

Originally Posted by terry.sc

Nobody is stopping anyone running on hydrogen. If you want to run your car on hydrogen, there are companies that have been around for years that will convert it for you so it can run on both petrol and hydrogen in case you can't get to a hydrogen refilling station.

Don't you mean LPG?

[mattr]

Originally Posted by RudolfXC

Don't you mean LPG?

No, hydrogen, LPG is another option. (one of many)

Hydrogen is a crock tho, the energy required to manufacture makes it a far far worse polluter than petrol, or diesel. Or burning tyres (probably).

Much like most of the cack spouted up there.

Most of the "environmental" cars are simply developed to slot into a gap in legislation. They aren't particularly green. Some are less green than the conventional cars they replace/compete against. Most of the advertising/marketing is badly skewed, most of the published research is as well. Doing it properly would be public suicide. Hence most of the organisations who have done research are sitting on the data. And they will continue to sit on it until legislation is sorted. Which is unlikely, as the decision makers are mainly publicity seeking dullards. (aka, professional/career politicians)

Only way to solve the problem is to stop driving. Public transport. Home working, and so on.

But the chances of that happening are between slim and non-existent. We will just wait until the fuel runs out.