[henno]

Jezza86 wrote:

need to steal honda's 110Kw hydrogen fuel cell

... and have ASIO rock up on your front doorstep in 15 minutes.

[Jezza86]

I know the asio guys here. They dont move that fast.
That honda fuel cell is going to be mass produced in 2018 they say. It would give 400 k (typical std jimny fuel range) from 4.5 kg of fuel. The motor delivers 250nm from 0 to 3500 rpm so its dooable I reckon. Lots of reinforcement round the hydrogen tank required.

[Rhinoman]

henno wrote:

and (unlike electric motors) generate absolutely zero torque at 0 RPM.
.....
If only battery technology could keep up / catch up.

Electric motors create zero torque at zero RPM, that's simple physics.

The electric car is well over 100 years old, battery technology still hasn't caught up and if it ever does it would still take forever to recharge it.

[henno]

Rhinoman wrote:

Electric motors create zero torque at zero RPM, that's simple physics.

If by zero torque you mean maximum torque, then yes.

Honestly, I'm slightly confused (pre-caffeine brain) but electric motors most definitely generate "twisting force" while stalled... a buttload of it.

EDIT: Like this (ref: http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/motors3.html )

[Jezza86]

if they generated 0 torque at 0 rpm you would need a starter motor to get them turning to make torque. but a starter motor is eleteric, so your starter motor will need a starter motor. but a starter motor is eleteric, so your starter motor will need a starter motor. but a starter motor is eleteric, so your starter motor will need a starter motor. but a starter motor is eleteric, so your starter motor will need a starter motor.

im pretty sure, if your starter motor produces 0 torque, and cant turn itself, your doing it wrong. and your peterol suzuki suddently needs a kickstarter.

also, because magnets.

[Jezza86]

also, hydrogen. its like a gas battery, that you just fill up with more gas!
no recharging, you just need to buy medical grade 99.9999% pureity, it costs roughly $3 a KG . 1kg is (if used electrolyticly) is roughly on par with 10l of petrol if your getting 10L/100K. so if your paying $16/ 100 with petrol and $3 on hydrogen. it takes 5 minutes to fill up 4kg of hydrogen at a quick fill station. less if they allow us to fill up cars with more expensive liquid hydrogen, but they wont, because it would be stupidly dangerous in a explosion. (cryogenic reasons)
disadvantage, you cant just pour another gerri can in. you would need a few industerial G cilinders for a long trip in a jimny.
so its simple observation, physics, the hydrogen economy, a little chemistry, but mostly just common since and caffeine rubbed together.

[royce]

how much energy is used to make that 1kg of Hydrogen?

[Jezza86]

37kwh off the top of my head.
and most comes from hydrocarbon sources. but cheaper is cheaper, and as per the hydrogen economy theory, if nuclear electrolysis is used the prices come down.

[jimny_timmy]

My brain hurts....

[royce]

I think the idea of things like electric cars is to make them cleaner, why come up with new technology if its no real improvement.

Nobody has yet mentioned that with it having ESP, none of the Transport Depts are going to be real excited about allowing any of them to be lifted.

[alien]

the thing with hydrogen - while its not generally "nice" to make - when its burnt it just makes water - so you're much greener on the emissions end of the cycle.

[royce]

Whilst you are right about just producing water, its not being burnt as such, its making electricity.

If I run my car up to its max speed then coast in neutral, I am being quite green right at that point as well, but overall it will still be shit, for the same reason that solar panels are so so on the green scale energy to produce them compared to the energy they provide is a bit sketchy compared to proper sized power plants.

[Jezza86]

the advantage is where the emissions occur. you can have stack treatment and carbon capture at the hydrogen power station which means less emissions to the atmosphere. or better yet, nuclear gen 4 reactors with no radioactive waste till its decommissioned. the closest thing anyone will see to a nuclear car.
if you turned your motor off it would be even more efficient again while your coasting, which is what happens in electric cars, their only producing the minimum required torque in the highest gear at the lowest revs, untill you put your foot down and the CVT and electric slingshot you to the next universe. as drag increases to the square root of velocity, it is by no means more efficient to drive at anything faster then your cruising speed then coast back down. we only do this in gliders where no engine is used at all as power is derived from thermalling.
If you hit the breaks the eleteric motor kicks in and decelerates you by generating power which is temporally stored. as the mechanical breaks will only get used in emergencies this will mean less wear and tare, less warping of rotors and break fade.

if they do electric motors at the wheels (or in them, which has been toyed with), there's likely to be aftermarket controls available to limit and change the available torque for 4x4ing and with no axle mounted diffs to hang up on, the car will be a lot taller through this design, reducing the need for the only good lift, bigger wheels. obviously youll still need adequate traction, which is the importance of standard wheel size which is a problem because in the future we probably wont get much say on what size wheels we can use because kids straight out of university have to justify their jobs by making policy and legislation in the cities and they do this based on bad data ans assumptions on the presumption that big wheels are dangerous.

we cannot detect using statistics how many crashes are avoided by having more contact surface on the black top (or dirt in my case) road.
i can still lock up my rears on bitumen with 30's. yes its more wear on my breaks to decelerate a 30kg 30" tyre, but with proper maintenance, if my breaks can stop the wheel turning, then before the wheel stops turning wheels are providing more friction between the ground and the car then a standard 205, meaning i decelerate quicker.

[Gwagensteve]

That's true Jezza but most of Australia burns brown coal so our electric cars are more polluting than an equivalent petrol engined vehicle.

Steve.

[driftke70]

many people seem to ignore the fact that over 80% of the cost of petrol in australia is road tax.

If hydrogen or fast charge electricity was sold at service stations, can bet your sweet ass that it would be taxed just as much and considering its more expensive before tax than petrol is without tax, its not a cheaper option is it.

[Jezza86]

Gwagensteve wrote:

That's true Jezza but most of Australia burns brown coal so our electric cars are more polluting than an equivalent petrol engined vehicle.

Steve.

only victoria burn that nasty stuff. most of queensland is powered by stanwell(1460 MW), callide(1,720 MW), and nrg(1,680MW), 3 power stations within 150K of each other in centeral queensland generating 4755MW. the rest of the state is 3635mw of coal, wivanhoe hydros 500MW and some gas. its unfortunate we donot have a 5Gw nuclear power station there instead.

driftke70 wrote:

many people seem to ignore the fact that over 80% of the cost of petrol in australia is road tax.

If hydrogen or fast charge electricity was sold at service stations, can bet your sweet ass that it would be taxed just as much and considering its more expensive before tax than petrol is without tax, its not a cheaper option is it.

Quote:

From the wiki of all that is known
The excise tax on commonly used fuels in Australia as of June 2006 are as follows:[citation needed]
A$0.38143 per litre on Unleaded Petrol fuel (Includes standard, blended (E10) and premium grades)
A$0.38143/0.40143 per litre on Diesel fuel (Ultra-low sulphur/Conventional)
A$0.05 per litre on Liquified petroleum gas used as fuel (Autogas or LPG as it is commonly known in Australia) till 30/06/2014. Increments of 2.5 cpl is applicable every financial year till July 2015 where the total excise will be A$0.125 per litre.
A$0.38143 per litre on Ethanol fuel (Can be reduced/removed via Grants)
A$0.38143 per litre on Biodiesel (Can be reduced/removed via Grants)
Note: Gasoline for use as fuel in an aircraft is taxed at $0.08869 per litre.[2]

no tax yet, but i agree, the ato will always double dip with excise and gst (triple if you count income tax on the money used to buy the fuel)
im off to the airport to see how the jimny runs on 100UL

[driftke70]

ignoring gst which is roughly 15 cents /L
excise tax 38 cents /L
53 cents = 53/150 x 100 = 38%
which is a fair bit.

I feel cheated, my boss when I was a youngster at a service station told me 90 percent of it was tax

[alien]

i remember as a kid, my mum complaining that the fuel price was 38c / L... lol

when i got my license it was 58.5 - but quickly hit the 60's and just kept rising.

[Gwagensteve]

Jezza86 wrote:

Gwagensteve wrote:

That's true Jezza but most of Australia burns brown coal so our electric cars are more polluting than an equivalent petrol engined vehicle.

Steve.

only victoria burn that nasty stuff. most of queensland is powered by stanwell(1460 MW), callide(1,720 MW), and nrg(1,680MW), 3 power stations within 150K of each other in centeral queensland generating 4755MW.

I didn't realise Queensland burned fairies in their power stations.
Burning coal to run electric cars is doing absolutely nothing for the environment.

Steve.

[Jezza86]

was referring to the lower calorific value of brown coal and its and the additional CO2 per joule of energy, but yes, Queensland burns sparkly black coal faries.
burning these faries to recharge batteries and make hydrogen electrolytically to power electric cars is less efficient both energy wise.
this is why i want nuclear power. and also because i want everyone to have sunflowers.

[Gwagensteve]

I agree. I have no problem whatsoever with nuclear power at all. I think it's great for the environment. Burning brown coal or black fairies to make steam to run a turbine to convert up to 22KV transport that power hundreds of km, then step it down to 240V then convert it to 12V to charge a battery that then converts that stored energy back into motive power is really dumb.

This is way off topic though.

Steve.

[henno]

^^ I think Nikola Tesla just high-fived you from his grave, though.

[Marko_SJ]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I agree. I have no problem whatsoever with nuclear power at all. I think it's great for the environment. Burning brown coal or black fairies to make steam to run a turbine to convert up to 22KV transport that power hundreds of km, then step it down to 240V then convert it to 12V to charge a battery that then converts that stored energy back into motive power is really dumb.

This is way off topic though.

Steve.

I wanted to "like" this post and AZ has no like button.

[royce]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I agree. I have no problem whatsoever with nuclear power at all. I think it's great for the environment. Burning brown coal or black fairies to make steam to run a turbine to convert up to 22KV transport that power hundreds of km, then step it down to 240V then convert it to 12V to charge a battery that then converts that stored energy back into motive power is really dumb.

This is way off topic though.

Steve.

Even with Coal (including the I cant believe it burns stuff in Vic) its lower emissions to do it that way compared to Internal Combustion Engines (based on total impact of dragging up the crude, refining it, shipping it from Singapore etc etc)

But power generation is separate issue and and one that's being addressed slowly (or was till this bunch of wankers got voted in) so in the mean time it kinda makes sense to get this end up and running as well.
Once the demand is about (just like unless we all buy 'green' power there is no incentive (IE profit to be made) to make cleaner power stations) then I think we will start to see better charging solutions pop up, solar based backyard stations, wind, hell hydroelectric via your mains water connection could even be possible.

[Jezza86]

The_Amateur wrote:

Gwagensteve wrote:

I agree. I have no problem whatsoever with nuclear power at all. I think it's great for the environment. Burning brown coal or black fairies to make steam to run a turbine to convert up to 22KV transport that power hundreds of km, then step it down to 240V then convert it to 12V to charge a battery that then converts that stored energy back into motive power is really dumb.

This is way off topic though.

Steve.

I wanted to "like" this post and AZ has no like button.

i have this picture of Steve smashing a Tesla roadster with a baseball bat for being bad science.
i really want a hydrogen jimny now.