Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Imagine a car that doen't need gas!! - Page 2

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by gcowan on October 29, 2005, 6:55 pm
 

dbs__usenet@tanj.com wrote:

I've been doing that. As another poster said,
there are hurdles. At least two billion people are going
to become motorists in the next few decades,
one way or another.

If he has a hurdle-free way for them all to be,
by their own choice, zero-local-emissions motorists
the world needs to know about it.

Solid waste disposal? Hard to use? Please explain.


--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet


Posted by dbs__usenet on October 29, 2005, 10:16 pm
 
gcowan@eagle.ca wrote:

As I understood the process, solid waste was created in the purification
and during the burning.  Sort of like the waste created by burning coal.

That's not zero local emissions in my book.  

If it takes more room than gas for the same amount of power, the design of
cars has to change.  Since it's a solid fuel, it will need proper hopper
design and they tend to be bulky too.  You would hate to be accelerating
onto the freeway only to find the pellets had jammed up in the hopper's
feed mechanism.

I still think the new Li-Ion batteries using nano surfaced electrodes is a
much better answer for energy storage.  

Posted by gcowan on October 30, 2005, 2:36 am
 
dbs__usenet@tanj.com wrote:

Do you happen to recall your source?


Burning produces B2O3: not a waste.
Here is it with a lot of water:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/2B2O3_water.jpg

B motors would produce it much drier than that,
and colourless. (Yes, two colourless oxides'
glassy alloy, in a certain composition range,
is brown. Not quite sure why.)

But why isn't it a waste? Because the amount
of it that is produced per driveshaft kWh,
supposing 20 percent efficiency, is two dollars'
worth. 1 kg. From its on-board bin
it goes back to the plant the B came from.


No, not like that. Not like CO2, not like fly ash.


I hope your book is subject to revision.


All true.


http://www.acpropulsion.com/EAASV_101803.pdf  , p. 17 of 42,
tells me Li-ion batteries' mass per driveshaft kWh
is at least 7 kg, at least seven times heavier than B2O3.

One can imagine a roadway strewn with B pellets
and charged-up Li-ion batteries, and two vehicles
that scoop up their respective fuels and dump them
aft when they're done. But the Li-ion batteries
aren't going to stand up to being scooped and dumped
as happily as B atoms, and as noted they are seven
times heavier as they leave.
22 times heavier than B coming in.


--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
boron as energy carrier: real-car range, nuclear cachet


Posted by dbs__usenet on October 31, 2005, 12:58 am
 
I don't recall the source.

If the boron oxide is created and needs to be recycled (using more
energy), it is waste in my book.  Just as an aluminum can is.

If the waste from 1kwh of storage is worth $, it will not be scattered
along the road.   The brown color may be from impurities.  It's not
burned in  pure oxygen, it's burned in air.

The nano textured Li-ION will (per the press release) charge quickly, have
similar density to current batteries and have a much, much improved life.
It can be fast charged in minutes, making it equal in many ways to the boron
for quick refueling. While heavier, it is much smaller, so it will fit in a
smaller car that has less wind resistance.

The li-ion still wins in my book.

Posted by Michael Pardee on October 31, 2005, 12:37 pm
 
The energy is what makes boron (like hydrogen) a storage medium. Batteries
are "recycled" in that sense every time they are charged. Oxidized boron and
discharged batteries are not waste; they are storage waiting to be
re-energized.

Mike



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread